Dr. Joshua K. Luka has described as false and misleading media reports linking his name to alleged indictment over the activities of the purported Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council (PFIPC), saying the reports have wrongly presented his role and assigned duties to his office that do not belong to it.
Luka, a Director in the Office of the Accountant-General of the Federation, made the clarification in response to reports which listed his name among government officials allegedly involved in facilitating the activities of the purported agency.
One of the reports specifically identified Luka as a Director in the Consolidated Accounts Department (CAD) and alleged that he was linked to the creation of government accounts and the assignment of a National Chart of Accounts code to the purported PFIPC. Other reports similarly placed his name among officials described as having been indicted in connection with the matter.
Luka rejected the portrayal, insisting that it does not reflect his actual responsibilities or what transpired.
He challenged the attribution of government account opening to the Consolidated Accounts Department, explaining that the responsibility does not fall within the functions of the CAD Directorate.
According to him, the opening of government bank accounts falls within the responsibilities of the Director, Funds and the Director, Treasury Single Account (TSA)/Government Integrated Financial Management Information System (GIFMIS).
He said attributing account opening to the CAD Directorate gives a wrong impression of his official role and could suggest that he had direct responsibility for establishing or operating an account allegedly connected to the purported PFIPC.
Luka also objected to the use of the word “indicted” in relation to his name, saying that being mentioned or questioned during an investigation should not be presented as proof of criminal culpability.
He said the reports failed to distinguish between an official whose administrative actions are examined during an investigation and an official who has actually been indicted for a criminal offence.
Appearing before the House of Representatives Ad Hoc Committee investigating the PFIPC matter, Luka explained the circumstances surrounding an administrative code associated with the purported organisation.
He told the committee that the code was not conveyed directly to the purported PFIPC but was sent to the Permanent Secretary, State House, as part of the process of checking the authenticity of the request.
“As part of our due diligence, what we did was to convey the administrative code to the Permanent Secretary, State House, and not to the so-called agency,” Luka said during the proceedings.
After signing the letter addressed to the Permanent Secretary, State House, Luka travelled to Arusha, Tanzania, and was there on December 2, 2024, when, according to him, the letter was hijacked from the schedule officer who was responsible for supervising its dispatch.
He said that upon his return, he was posted out of the Consolidated Accounts Department on December 18, 2024, to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and was subsequently posted again in January 2025 to the Nigerian Correctional Service.
Luka said the sequence of events is important in determining what role, if any, he played after the letter was transmitted to the Permanent Secretary, State House.
He maintains that he was not responsible for what happened to the correspondence after it left the process he had handled and that events which occurred afterwards should not be attributed to him.
Luka has also stated that he never met or had any contact whatsoever with Adeniyi Adeyemi, the man at the centre of the allegations concerning the purported PFIPC.
He said his involvement ended with the official process through which the administrative code was conveyed to the Permanent Secretary, State House, rather than directly to the purported agency.
The investigation subsequently examined how the document moved from the Accountant-General’s office to Adeyemi.
Luka’s position is that whatever happened after that point resulted from the actions of individuals who handled the correspondence and was not a decision by him to assist the activities of the purported organisation.
He has therefore rejected any suggestion that his appearance before the investigating committee, his official responsibilities or the administrative process he participated in amounts to evidence of involvement in the alleged fraud.
The controversy surrounding the purported PFIPC arose from allegations that Adeyemi operated a fictitious government organisation using purported official documents and approvals to gain access to government processes.
Recent reports have said investigators identified five government officials whose actions or roles were being examined in connection with how the purported organisation gained access to government structures. Among those named was Luka.
Luka’s response is that the reports have gone beyond an accurate account of his involvement in the investigation by assigning duties to his office which, according to him, belong to other directorates within the Office of the Accountant-General of the Federation.
He has called for the record to be corrected, particularly where his name has been presented as that of an indicted official or where responsibilities outside the functions of the CAD Directorate have been attributed to him.
He said an official can be invited to explain an administrative process, have his office’s actions examined or provide evidence before an investigative panel without that fact alone establishing criminal involvement.
Luka said he has no objection to scrutiny of public officers and government processes but insisted that reports of such proceedings should be based on the actual facts and the functions of the offices involved.
He therefore wants the reports in which his name appeared to reflect his actual official responsibilities, the chronology surrounding the letter and the evidence he presented before the investigating committee.
For Luka, the issue is not an attempt to avoid scrutiny but a demand that his name and professional record should not be tied to allegations which, according to him, are not supported by the facts or the responsibilities of the office he occupied.
Credit: NEWSCOUNT
What do you think about this?
Drop your opinion in the comment section.
FOLLOW US & Share this with someone who needs to see this.
