The legal defence team of the self-acclaimed Director-General of the controversial Presidential Foreign Investment Promotion Council (PFIPC) Adeniyi Adeyemi, has insisted that that their client is “being made a scapegoat to cover up deep-seated institutional lapses…within government structure”.
They also insisted that their client has to appear before the House of Representatives ad hoc committee investigating the council and led by Yusuf Gagdi, to ensure fair hearing to all parties in the controversy.
Adeyemi’s defence team stated this in a statement on Sunday through his legal defence team signed by Festus Akhigbe
The defence maintained that Adeyemi was being made “a scapegoat to cover up deep-seated institutional lapses, procedural breakdowns and internal approvals within the government structure.”
According to Akigbe, Adeyemi could not have single-handedly created the disputed agency, alleging that several ministries, departments and agencies of the Federal Government processed, recognised or interacted with the council.
The legal team argued that if their client is not allowed to testify before the committee chaired by Gagdi, any report produced without hearing from him would violate his constitutional right to a fair hearing.
“We formally request that the panel issue the necessary administrative clearance to allow our client, Prince Adeniyi Adeyemi Matthew, to appear in person and testify.
“Any investigative outcome or final legislative report produced without affording our client a direct hearing would be fundamentally flawed, incomplete, and a breach of the constitutional right to a fair hearing (audi alteram partem),” the statement read.
Adeyemi’s lawyers rejected what they described as attempts to portray their client as “an isolated, mastermind impostor” who fabricated a government agency without institutional backing.
According to the statement, the Office of the Secretary to the Government of the Federation acknowledged documents relating to the council and facilitated office allocation within the Federal Secretariat.
“We, the legal defence team of Prince Adeniyi Adeyemi, issue this public statement to set the record straight following recent developments, our client’s current police detention, and the ongoing legislative hearings.
“The Office of the Accountant-General of the Federation and Central Bank of Nigeria acted on official documentation to issue administrative budget codes, grant self-accounting status, post federal civil service staff to the council, and officially open operational accounts.
“The Office of the Head of the Civil Service of the Federation: Formally approved the establishment structure and granted recruitment waivers that enabled the onboarding of 314 personnel.”
They further claimed that heads of security agencies attended programmes organised by the council, while the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission allocated a property to it, requested a processing fee and presented a plaque of recognition to its leadership.
The statement said, “If the SGF, the Accountant-General, the Central Bank of Nigeria, the Head of Service, the Budget Office, the EFCC, the National Assembly, and the heads of Nigeria’s primary security architecture all verified, processed, funded, and officially interacted with this agency over an extended period, how can a single citizen, Prince Adeniyi Adeyemi, be held uniquely responsible for failing to detect what the entire apparatus of the State validated?
“It is an administrative impossibility for an unassisted individual to mislead every arm of the Federal Government simultaneously without official, high-level institutional sanction.”
It called for a broader investigation involving “civil society, legal experts and independent observers” to audit what it described as the complete paper trail across all ministries, departments and agencies connected with the council.
“While we note the ongoing proceedings by the House of Representatives ad hoc committee and investigating bodies, justice cannot be served by prosecuting the mouthpiece while ignoring the state machinery that built, budgeted, and bureaucratically birthed the entity.
“We reiterate our call for a truly comprehensive, multi-stakeholder panel that includes civil society, legal experts, and independent observers to audit the complete paper trail across all involved ministries, departments, and agencies,” the statement added.
(Ripples)
