A fresh independent review of Nigeria’s Appropriation Acts from 2019 to 2026 has raised new questions over the alleged fraud involving the Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council (PFIPC), suggesting that the controversy extends far beyond the actions of a single individual and may expose deeper institutional weaknesses within the Federal Government.
The findings, published by software engineer and public affairs commentator Enitan Bello (@enitandev) on X, argue that the name at the centre of the controversy was not invented from scratch but was derived from a legitimate presidential advisory body established during the administration of former President Muhammadu Buhari.
According to Bello, the discovery raises critical questions about Nigeria’s budget preparation process, civil service verification procedures, and institutional oversight.
The Origin of the Name
According to Bello’s research, the Presidential Economic Advisory Council (PEAC) was established by former President Muhammadu Buhari in September 2019 to replace the Economic Management Team previously headed by then Vice President Yemi Osinbajo.
The council comprised respected economists, including Prof. Doyin Salami as Chairman, Prof. Charles Soludo, Bismarck Rewane, and several others, who were tasked with advising the President on economic policy.
Following President Bola Tinubu’s inauguration, however, a different advisory body—the Presidential Economic Coordination Council (PECC)—was established in March 2024 and formally inaugurated in July of the same year.
The PECC, chaired by President Tinubu, includes prominent business leaders such as Aliko Dangote and Tony Elumelu, alongside senior government officials, including the Senate President and the Chairman of the Nigeria Governors’ Forum.
Bello notes that although the PECC effectively replaced the Buhari-era advisory council, there is no publicly available evidence that the original PEAC was formally dissolved through an official gazette or Budget Office directive. Instead, it simply became inactive.
According to him, that dormant institutional identity may have created an opportunity for exploitation.
What the Budget Documents Reveal
Bello said he independently examined Nigeria’s 2024, 2025 and 2026 Appropriation Acts.
His review found that neither the Presidential Economic Advisory Council nor Budget Code 0111062001 appears in either the 2024 or 2025 budgets.
However, the situation changed in the 2026 Appropriation Act, signed into law by President Tinubu on April 17, 2026.
For the first time, Budget Code 0111062001 appears on pages 50 and 51 under the title:
“Presidential Economic Advisory Council / Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council.”
The budget allocates ₦1,302,978,784, comprising:
₦802.98 million for personnel costs;
₦573 million for salaries;
₦200 million for overhead expenditure; and
₦300 million for capital projects under research and development.
The capital allocation contains ten detailed programme items, including funding for the World Investment Summit 2026, Harvard’s Program on Negotiation, Certified Investment Management Analyst training, WTO trade negotiation courses, strategic investment management programmes, and executive leadership training.
Bello argues that the level of detail suggests the submission was professionally prepared rather than merely serving as a placeholder.
He further notes that the budget code appears to have been introduced during the September–December 2025 budget preparation cycle—the same period during which Adeyemi, the principal suspect in the PFIPC case, had already been arrested and later charged.
A Borrowed Institutional Identity?
One of Bello’s central arguments is that whoever created the 2026 budget entry deliberately adopted the name of an already existing presidential body.
According to him, using the title “Presidential Economic Advisory Council” would naturally attract less scrutiny because the council had genuinely existed under the Buhari administration.
He argues that while the Presidency later described both the PEAC and the PFIPC as fictitious entities, the PEAC itself was never fictitious. Rather, Bello suggests that an existing institutional identity was combined with the PFIPC designation to create what appeared to be a legitimate government body.
The Accountant-General’s Office
Bello also relies on court documents previously reported by Premium Times to highlight what he considers another troubling aspect of the case.
According to those documents, Adeyemi allegedly wrote to the Office of the Accountant-General of the Federation (OAGF) in April 2025 requesting the deployment of personnel to the PFIPC.
He also sought the transfer of officials from the Office of the Chief Economic Adviser to the President.
The OAGF reportedly approved the requests.
On August 28, 2025, three senior civil servants were officially posted to the organisation:
Ojo Victor, Assistant Chief Accountant;
Omeh Amarachukwu, Internal Auditor; and
Wakili Saidu of the Audit Department.
The posting letter was reportedly published on the OAGF’s official website.
The officers resumed duty in September 2025 but later informed investigators that they had virtually no responsibilities.
According to statements contained in court documents, they received no formal documentation, were given no operational mandate, and performed no official duties. Some reportedly attended the office only once a week because there was no work to do.
Bello argues that these developments raise serious concerns about verification procedures within the federal civil service, particularly how officials could be deployed to an agency whose legal status had allegedly never been confirmed.
Timeline of Events
Bello reconstructs the following sequence of events:
September 2019: Buhari establishes the Presidential Economic Advisory Council.
March 2024: Tinubu establishes the Presidential Economic Coordination Council.
April 2025: Adeyemi requests staff deployment from the OAGF.
May 2025: Adeyemi meets Deputy Speaker Benjamin Kalu during a publicly reported visit.
June 2025: PFIPC hosts a Chinese investment delegation.
August 28, 2025: Three civil servants are officially posted to PFIPC.
September 2025: Adeyemi visits the EFCC Chairman and also engages the Nigerian Electricity Regulatory Commission (NERC) regarding the proposed World Investment Summit.
September–December 2025: Budget Code 0111062001 is inserted into the proposed 2026 federal budget.
October 10, 2025: Adeyemi hosts foreign diplomats at the Wells Carlton Hotel, Abuja.
October 17, 2025: The Presidency petitions security agencies.
October 22, 2025: A key associate, Dolapo Babatunde Tanimola, reportedly dies in a hotel fire—an incident Bello notes received little independent media coverage.
October 27, 2025: Adeyemi is arrested.
November 27, 2025: An eight-count charge is filed before the Federal High Court, while two additional suspects identified only as Femi and Anu remain at large.
December 19, 2025: The 2026 Appropriation Bill is presented to the National Assembly containing Budget Code 0111062001.
April 17, 2026: The budget is signed into law with the allocation intact.
Unanswered Questions
According to Bello, several critical questions remain unanswered:
Who prepared and submitted Budget Code 0111062001?
Through which Ministry, Department or Agency did the proposal originate?
Who approved the deployment of federal civil servants without verifying the agency’s legal status?
How was office accommodation allocated?
Who authorised the issuance of a .gov.ng domain to the organisation?
What do the Government Integrated Financial Management Information System (GIFMIS) records reveal about expenditure under the budget code?
Who are the two co-defendants identified only as Femi and Anu, and why have their identities not been disclosed?
Beyond One Individual
Bello concludes that the available evidence raises issues extending well beyond allegations against a single suspect.
He argues that the combination of a dormant presidential council’s identity, a newly introduced budget code carrying a ₦1.3 billion allocation, the deployment of federal civil servants to an allegedly inactive office, the issuance of a government web domain, and unresolved institutional approvals point to systemic failures that only a thorough judicial process and independent investigation can fully explain.
As Adeyemi’s trial progresses, Bello maintains that public attention should focus not only on the criminal allegations against one defendant but also on the institutional processes that allegedly enabled the events surrounding the PFIPC to occur.
Source: Enitan Bello (@enitandev), based on his review of Nigeria’s Appropriation Acts, publicly available court documents, and previously published reports by Premium Times.
