FG’s 2025 Letter Disowning Alleged Fake Agency Sparks Fresh Questions Over 2026 Budget Allocation
By Passman Akpos
A letter purportedly issued by the Office of the Secretary to the Government of the Federation (OSGF), dated October 21, 2025, has ignited fresh controversy after resurfacing online, with critics questioning how an agency allegedly declared unauthorized could later appear in the 2026 Appropriation Act.
The document, addressed to the Executive Secretary of the Nigerian Investment Promotion Council (NIPC), states that the Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council (PFIPC) “is not a recognised body of the Federal Government of Nigeria.”
According to the letter, investigations allegedly found that the council had “no legal or administrative backing” and was never established by any instrument of the Federal Government. It further described the council’s operations as “unauthorised and fraudulent” and advised government agencies to disregard any engagement with it.
The letter has resurfaced amid ongoing controversy surrounding Prince Adeniyi Adeyemi Matthew, who has been publicly linked to the disputed council. Some government supporters have cited the document as evidence that the Federal Government had distanced itself from the organisation as early as October 2025.
However, the development has triggered an avalanche of scepticism across social media, where many Nigerians are questioning the authenticity of the letter and the circumstances surrounding the council’s reported inclusion in the 2026 federal budget.
Several commentators argued that the document could have been backdated or doctored, insisting that its existence alone does not resolve the growing controversy.
Others posed a series of questions demanding official clarification, including:
If the agency was disowned in October 2025, how did it reportedly appear in the 2026 Appropriation Act?
Which government ministry or agency proposed its budget?
Which committees of the National Assembly scrutinised and approved the allocation?
Who defended the budget before lawmakers?
How did the agency allegedly secure entries in government payment systems if it lacked legal recognition?
Some social media users alleged that the controversy could involve more than one individual, suggesting that senior public officials should also be investigated if any public funds were allocated to an unrecognised entity.
Others maintained that the circulating letter cannot be accepted as conclusive evidence without independent verification, noting that digital documents can be altered.
As of the time of filing this report, there has been no independent verification of the authenticity of the circulating letter, and no official response addressing the specific claims that the PFIPC received an allocation in the 2026 budget.
The controversy continues to fuel calls for a transparent investigation into how any allegedly unrecognised organisation could have appeared in official government processes, if those claims are confirmed.
Observers say only a comprehensive explanation from the Presidency, the Budget Office, and the National Assembly can resolve the growing public debate.
