Alleged fake PFIPC scheme: Court issues arrest warrant against Adeniyi Adeyemi

The Federal High Court in Abuja on Tuesday issued an arrest warrant against the Director-General (DG) of the alleged fake Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council (PFIPC), Adeniyi Adeyemi, following his absence from scheduled proceedings.

Justice Mohammed Umar approved the arrest warrant following an oral application by counsel for the police, Wisdom Madaki.

Nairametrics previously reported that the Nigeria Police Force had announced plans to arraign Adeniyi Adeyemi before the court on Tuesday over allegations bordering on forgery, impersonation, and related offences.

The police, in a fresh charge marked FHC/ABJ/CR/562/2025, listed Adeyemi, “Femi Surname Unknown,” and “Anu Surname Unknown” as the first to third defendants, respectively, over alleged forgery and impersonation.

What they are saying

At the resumed proceedings, the registrar called the case, but none of the defendants announced their appearance.

Madaki subsequently urged the court to issue a bench warrant for Adeyemi’s arrest following his absence.

Adeyemi’s lawyer, Genesis Francis, told the court that his client feared for his life and had written a letter to President Bola Tinubu.

• “The court will help him stay alive,” the judge replied.

Justice Umar consequently directed all security agencies to arrest Adeyemi wherever he is found.

The matter was then adjourned until September 30 for arraignment.

Get up to speed

The prosecution has lined up several witnesses, including the Chief of Staff to the President, Femi Gbajabiamila, alongside officials from the Office of the Accountant-General of the Federation, police officers, civil servants, and individuals allegedly linked to the operations of the purported agency. Hotel operators, a clergyman, and persons said to have worked with Adeyemi at the alleged agency are also expected to testify.

• Investigators alleged that Adeyemi operated the purported agency from the Federal Secretariat Complex, Abuja, before his arrest.
• The police case follows a public dispute over the existence of the alleged PFIPC after Adeyemi challenged the Presidency’s denial that the body ever existed.
• Adeyemi accused the Chief of Staff to the President, Femi Gbajabiamila, of making conflicting statements regarding both the Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council (PFIPC) and the Presidential Economic Advisory Council (PEAC).

During a recent press briefing, Adeyemi called for an independent probe into the two bodies and alleged that Gbajabiamila demanded financial payments linked to his purported appointment.

He claimed that N400 million was paid through intermediaries, with an additional N200 million allegedly requested—claims that have not been substantiated.

Adeyemi also argued that references to both the PFIPC and the Presidential Economic Advisory Council appeared in the 2026 Appropriation Act, questioning the government’s position that the organisations never officially existed.

What you should know

The planned prosecution comes as the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) continues a broader investigation ordered by President Tinubu. The Senate had earlier declined to immediately investigate the inclusion of the alleged PFIPC in the 2026 Appropriation Act, opting instead to await the outcome of the anti-graft agency’s probe.

• The President directed the ICPC to investigate not only Adeyemi’s activities but also those of any collaborators and the circumstances that may have enabled the alleged fake agency to appear legitimate.
• The probe will examine the alleged forgery of appointment letters and other government documents, claims of presidential appointments allegedly used to obtain official recognition and diplomatic support, including visa facilitation, as well as the opening and operation of bank accounts in the names of the purported agencies.

Investigators are also expected to trace funds linked to the alleged scheme, determine whether any public officials, financial institutions, intermediaries, or private individuals facilitated its operations, identify institutional loopholes that may have been exploited, and recommend measures to prevent similar incidents.