Fresh controversy has emerged over the disputed Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council (PFIPC) following claims that the organisation secured more than ₦1.3 billion in the 2026 Appropriation Act despite allegedly failing to undergo the mandatory legislative budget defence process.

The development has intensified scrutiny surrounding the council and its self-styled Director-General, Adeniyi Adeyemi, amid allegations of budget irregularities, administrative lapses and possible official complicity.

Questions have also been raised over how the disputed organisation reportedly obtained office space within the Federal Secretariat in Abuja and secured a place in the national budget despite concerns over its legal status.

According to reports, Adeyemi operated from an office at the Federal Secretariat for several months, where he allegedly received foreign diplomats and international partners, creating the impression that the council was a recognised government agency.

The controversy escalated after the Presidency reportedly distanced itself from the organisation, describing the PFIPC as a fictitious entity with no official recognition.

Vice President Kashim Shettima Officially Retained As APC Vice Presidential Candidate For 2027

An examination of the approved 2026 Appropriation Act reportedly showed that the organisation was listed as the Presidential Economic Advisory Council/Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council under budget code 0111062001.

The disputed body was allocated a total of ₦1,302,978,784, with ₦1,002,978,784 earmarked for recurrent expenditure and ₦300 million designated for capital projects.

The budget breakdown reportedly includes ₦573.26 million for personnel costs, ₦229.72 million for allowances and social contributions, ₦182.5 million for logistics relating to the proposed World Investment Summit 2026, and ₦11 million for strategic negotiations involving investment professionals.

Legislative sources alleged that officials of the council did not appear before the relevant Senate committee to defend the proposed expenditure, contrary to established budget procedures.

According to the sources, the agency’s management neither presented its estimates nor participated in the budget defence before the Senate Committee on Establishment and Public Service Matters, which oversees agencies under its jurisdiction.

Under the National Assembly’s budget process, ministries, departments and agencies are expected to appear before relevant committees to justify proposed allocations, explain previous budget performance and defend planned expenditures before final approval.

However, sources claimed the PFIPC’s allocation was approved without undergoing the standard legislative scrutiny, raising concerns over transparency and accountability in the appropriation process.

The controversy has renewed calls for a comprehensive investigation into the circumstances surrounding the council’s recognition, budget allocation and reported operations within government facilities, with stakeholders demanding greater accountability over the management of public funds.