‘You Can’t Budget for a Ghost’ — Presidency Faces Tough Questions Over Agency Scandal

By Passman Akpos

The Presidency’s explanation of the alleged “fictitious” Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council/Presidential Economic Advisory Council has triggered widespread public debate, with commentators demanding greater transparency over how an agency described as non-existent allegedly operated within government circles.

In a statement issued by the Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, Bayo Onanuga, the State House maintained that Prince Adeniyi Adeyemi Matthew was an impostor who forged appointment letters and fraudulently presented himself as Director-General of a non-existent government agency.

According to the Presidency, concerns first emerged after officials of the Nigerian Investment Promotion Council reported that another body appeared to be performing overlapping functions. The Office of the Chief of Staff subsequently petitioned security agencies in October 2025, requesting investigations into alleged forgery, impersonation, and the activities of individuals claiming appointments from the Presidency.

The statement further disclosed that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs had also sought clarification after Adeyemi reportedly convened a meeting with ambassadors in Abuja without official authorization. Following investigations, police arrested Adeyemi on October 27, 2025, searched his office and residence, recovered documents, and later charged him alongside two others on allegations including forgery, impersonation, and obtaining by false pretence. The Presidency also stated that investigations found no government funds were transferred into a Central Bank account allegedly opened through fraudulent means.

However, the official explanation has sparked fresh questions from political observers, legal analysts, and members of the public, many of whom argue that several aspects of the case remain unexplained.

Political commentator Abba Hikima posed seven questions directed at the Presidency, asking who inserted the agency into the 2026 Appropriation Act if it was truly fictitious, who defended and approved its budget before the National Assembly, who advised the President to sign the appropriation, who allegedly authorized the opening of a Central Bank account, who approved over 300 personnel reportedly linked to the agency, who paid their salaries, and under whose authority office space was allocated at the Federal Secretariat.

The questions have gained traction online, with many Nigerians arguing that if an agency was indeed fictitious, it would be difficult to explain how it allegedly progressed through multiple layers of government processes without the knowledge or involvement of public officials.

Some commentators have also questioned whether other questionable agencies could exist within government structures, insisting that the matter requires an independent, transparent, and comprehensive investigation rather than selective accountability.

Others contend that if Adeyemi is eventually found guilty by the courts, the investigation should also determine whether any public officials enabled or overlooked the activities that allegedly allowed the organization to function for months.

The Presidency, however, maintains that Adeyemi acted alone with accomplices in orchestrating an elaborate fraud and has urged Nigerians not to accept his claims before the ongoing criminal trial concludes. It emphasized that the matter is before the court and advised against prejudicial commentary.

As public interest continues to grow, calls for full disclosure have intensified, with many Nigerians insisting that only a transparent investigation addressing every stage of the alleged operation—from appointments and office allocation to budgeting and institutional oversight—will restore public confidence and answer lingering questions surrounding one of the country’s most controversial governance controversies.