by Mohammed Bello Doka
27 July, 2027
The Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council (PFIPC) scandal raises three disturbing possibilities. Was it a creation of the Buhari administration, as some officials now suggest? Was it merely a fake agency invented by fraudsters? Or did it become someone's cash cow inside government, sustained by official negligence or complicity?
The answers matter because they reveal whether Nigeria's greatest problem is political deception, bureaucratic incompetence, or institutional corruption.
Let us begin with the first claim.
Was PFIPC Buhari's creation?
The Budget Office told the House of Representatives that the PFIPC originated from the Presidential Economic Advisory Council (PEAC), established during Muhammadu Buhari's administration in 2019. On the surface, that explanation appears convenient. But does it withstand scrutiny?
The Buhari Media Office has rejected the claim, arguing that PEAC was merely an advisory body. It reportedly had no Director-General, no independent bureaucracy, no budget line, and never appeared as a spending agency in any Appropriation Act throughout Buhari's tenure.
If that is correct, then a fundamental question arises: if PFIPC truly evolved from PEAC, why did it suddenly emerge in the 2026 budget with hundreds of employees, bank accounts, office accommodation, and a ₦1.3 billion allocation only after Buhari had left office?
Transformation on that scale cannot occur silently. Someone would have had to establish the agency, approve its structure, create its budget code, authorize recruitment, and justify public funding.
If no law or executive instrument created PFIPC, then blaming Buhari is not an explanation. It is merely a convenient political narrative that raises more questions than it answers.
Was PFIPC simply a fake agency?
Suppose the Budget Office is wrong. Suppose PFIPC was never a legitimate government institution.
That raises an even more troubling question.
How does a fake agency recruit about 300 staff, operate from the Federal Secretariat, open two Central Bank accounts, obtain a GIFMIS code, and eventually receive a ₦1.3 billion allocation in the national budget?
Fraudsters can forge documents. They cannot, on their own, integrate themselves into multiple layers of Nigeria's public financial management system without official action somewhere along the chain.
Someone processed paperwork.
Someone verified documents.
Someone assigned codes.
Someone approved budget submissions.
Someone accepted the existence of an agency that apparently had no legal foundation.
If all these approvals occurred without anyone asking for the law establishing the council, then the scandal extends far beyond forgery. It exposes a bureaucracy where verification has become optional and procedure exists only on paper.
Or did PFIPC become someone's cash cow?
This may be the most uncomfortable question of all.
Reports indicate that Chief of Staff Femi Gbajabiamila became aware in October 2025 that his appointment letter had allegedly been forged. According to public accounts, letters were sent to relevant security agencies and government institutions.
But if the presidency knew there was a forgery, why was there no immediate public disclaimer?
Why was the public not warned?
Why were ministries, departments, financial institutions, and prospective employees not clearly informed that PFIPC lacked presidential authorization?
More importantly, what happened during the months between the discovery of the alleged forgery and the eventual public exposure of the scandal?
These are legitimate questions because silence can sometimes create the appearance of legitimacy. During that period, the agency reportedly continued operating, recruiting personnel, and interacting with government institutions.
If the government had sufficient information to alert security agencies, did it also have a responsibility to alert the Nigerian public?
Only a transparent investigation can answer that question.
Who actually failed?
Perhaps the biggest mistake Nigerians can make is reducing this controversy to a contest between Buhari and Tinubu or between political parties.
The real issue is institutional accountability.
Who assigned the GIFMIS code?
Who validated documentation for an agency whose legal basis is now being questioned?
Who approved recruitment processes?
Who inserted PFIPC into the Executive Budget before it reached the National Assembly?
Who failed to detect these irregularities before the President signed the Appropriation Act?
Every one of those actions left an administrative trail. Government operates through files, approvals, electronic records, and signatures. These are not mysteries beyond investigation.
If public institutions cannot identify how an apparently unauthorized agency advanced through multiple layers of government, then Nigeria faces a crisis far deeper than this single scandal.
Beyond the blame game
Nigerians deserve more than competing press statements.
If PFIPC was Buhari's creation, the government should produce the legal instrument establishing it.
If it was entirely fake, then Nigerians deserve to know how a fictitious agency penetrated some of the country's most sensitive financial and administrative systems.
If insiders facilitated its operations, then those responsible should face disciplinary and criminal consequences regardless of rank or political affiliation.
Anything less would amount to treating symptoms while ignoring the disease.
The questions that cannot be avoided
Several questions remain unanswered.
If PFIPC was genuinely linked to Buhari's PEAC, why did it never appear as a funded agency during his administration?
If it had no legal existence, how did it obtain official recognition across multiple government institutions?
Why did internal controls fail repeatedly?
Why was a public disclaimer not issued immediately after the alleged forgery was discovered?
Who approved its appearance in the Executive Budget?
Who authorized its budget allocation?
And perhaps the most important question of all: if this could happen once, how many other questionable entities may still be hidden inside government records?
These are not opposition questions or partisan questions. They are governance questions.
A test of government credibility
The PFIPC controversy is ultimately not about one agency.
It is about whether Nigeria's institutions still possess the ability to distinguish legitimate authority from fabricated authority.
If a non-existent agency can reportedly acquire office space, recruit staff, obtain financial codes, secure Central Bank accounts, and appear in a national budget, then the problem extends beyond a forged document. It points to systemic weaknesses that demand urgent reform.
The government now has an opportunity to restore public confidence—not through blame shifting, but through full disclosure.
The Nigerian people deserve to know whether PFIPC was Buhari's creation, a sophisticated fake agency, or a vehicle sustained by failures within government.
Until those questions are answered with evidence rather than rhetoric, the greatest scandal is not merely the existence of PFIPC.
It is the possibility that Nigeria's institutions have become so vulnerable that legitimacy itself can be forged.
Mohammed Bello Doka can be reached via [email protected]
Abuja Network News
Tags
Opinion