The purported Director-General of the Presidential Foreign Investment Promotion Council (PFIPC), Adeniyi Adeyemi, has rejected plans by a House of Representatives ad hoc committee to interrogate him at an undisclosed location while he remains in police custody.
Naijaonpoint reports that Adeyemi said he was willing to cooperate with the parliamentary investigation but insisted that his testimony should be heard at a public sitting, particularly because allegations against him had already been presented during the committee’s open proceedings.
His lawyer, Ademola Oyedokun, made the demand in a statement issued on Wednesday.
Oyedokun said his client welcomed the House investigation into the creation and operations of the controversial council but opposed any arrangement that would prevent Nigerians from hearing his response.
The lawyer said, “We have read that the committee intends to interview our client at an undisclosed date and place. We ask it, respectfully, to think again.
“Everyone else in this matter has been heard in public, and what has been said about our client was said in public. He should be allowed to answer in the same place it was said.”
Oyedokun urged the committee to exercise its constitutional powers to compel the police to produce Adeyemi before lawmakers at a public hearing.
He cited Section 89 of the 1999 Constitution, which empowers legislative committees to summon individuals and require their attendance during investigations.
He stated, “Section 89 of the Constitution gives the committee power to summon any person and to compel his attendance.
“We ask it to use that power and to require the police to produce our client at a public sitting.
“He will attend on any date it names, with his counsel, and answer every question put to him.”
The lawyer maintained that a public appearance would give Adeyemi an opportunity to respond to allegations concerning the circumstances in which the council was allegedly established and the government officials who purportedly dealt with it.
Oyedokun acknowledged that some questions might relate to ongoing criminal investigations or proceedings before the Federal High Court.
He said Adeyemi would answer questions relevant to the House inquiry but could, on legal advice, decline to address issues directly connected to pending court cases or investigations by security agencies.
He further stated, “Our client does not ask the committee to compromise any investigation. He will answer in public the questions this committee was constituted to ask and will reserve, upon legal advice, any question touching a matter before a court or an agency.
“Those may be taken separately and in private. What cannot be right is that the whole of his account be taken behind a closed door because part of it is sensitive.”
The lawyer said the defence would not attempt to argue the criminal allegations against Adeyemi through press statements, noting that those claims would be addressed before the appropriate courts and agencies.
Oyedokun said, “We will not argue our client’s case in a press statement. The allegations are before the Federal High Court and before several agencies, and they will be answered there, on oath.
“But this committee is asking a different question: how this council came to exist and who in government acted upon it.
“That question our client is anxious to answer, and Nigerians are entitled to hear it answered in public.”
He added that no court had yet heard Adeyemi present his account of the controversy.
The lawyer also challenged the legality of Adeyemi’s continued detention, arguing that the bench warrant reportedly relied upon by the police only authorised his arrest and production before the Federal High Court.
According to Oyedokun, the warrant did not permit the police to detain his client indefinitely without bringing him before a court.
“No order committing him to custody has ever been made, served on him or shown to him, and none could have been made because he has never been brought before any court,” he claimed.
The police had yet to respond publicly to the lawyer’s allegation as of the time of filing this report.
Committee Defends Closed-Door Plan
The House ad hoc committee investigating the PFIPC had on Tuesday announced plans to question Adeyemi at an undisclosed location while he remained in police custody.
The committee’s chairman, Yusuf Gagdi, said the arrangement was intended to prevent the legislative inquiry from interfering with separate investigations being conducted by the Nigeria Police Force (NPF), the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) and the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC).
Gagdi said the committee had invited Adeyemi but was informed by the police that he remained in custody pursuant to a court order.
He explained that the National Assembly would not take any action capable of undermining the judiciary or violating the constitutional principle of separation of powers.
According to him, lawmakers lacked the power to override an existing court order directing a suspect’s detention.
The committee is investigating allegations concerning the purported establishment and activities of the PFIPC, including claims of impersonation, forgery, financial impropriety and the unauthorised use of government offices, facilities and official insignia.
