Adeyemi Challenges Allegations Over Disputed Investment Council, Seeks Appearance Before Reps Probe

Lawyers insist detained council chief did not create the body alone, demand fair hearing before House panel

The controversy surrounding the disputed Presidential Foreign Investment Promotion Council has taken another turn following the detention of Adeniyi Adeyemi, who describes himself as the council’s director-general.

Adeyemi is currently in police custody as authorities investigate the circumstances surrounding the establishment and activities of the council. His detention has added a new dimension to an already contentious matter involving questions about the council's legal status, how it was created and the extent of government involvement in its operations.

Through his legal team, led by Festus Akhigbe, Adeyemi has rejected the suggestion that he unilaterally created the organisation.

His lawyers' position is significant because the central issue in the controversy is not merely whether Adeyemi presented himself as the head of the council, but whether government institutions were aware of, facilitated or otherwise engaged with the body over time.

According to the defence, several government agencies and institutions allegedly processed documents, considered requests and interacted with the council. The argument, therefore, is that portraying Adeyemi as an individual who simply created an unauthorised government institution on his own gives an incomplete picture of what happened.

Adeyemi wants to face the House panel

The legal team has also asked the House of Representatives ad-hoc committee chaired by Yusuf Gagdi to allow Adeyemi to appear before it personally.

In their request, the lawyers said:

“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.”

The request introduces an important procedural question into the investigation.

Adeyemi's lawyers argue that their client's exclusion could undermine the credibility of the investigation because he would be unable to respond directly to allegations concerning the council's creation, activities and interactions with public institutions.

They also contend that allowing him to testify would give him an opportunity to answer the allegations against him and establish what role, if any, government officials and institutions played in the council's operations.

The bigger question: Who authorised the council?

At the centre of the controversy is a fundamental question: Was the Presidential Foreign Investment Promotion Council a legitimate government initiative, an improperly constituted body, or an organisation operating without the necessary authority?

That question is important because the use of presidential or federal government nomenclature can create the impression that an organisation has official government backing.

If Adeyemi's account is correct that government institutions repeatedly processed documents or engaged with the council, investigators would have to establish who authorised those interactions and on what legal basis.

Conversely, if investigators establish that the council had no official mandate, they will need to determine how it was able to operate and engage with public institutions.

The distinction matters because individual responsibility could look very different depending on the evidence.

Detention raises due-process concerns

Adeyemi's detention also means that the investigation is unfolding simultaneously on two fronts: the criminal investigation by law-enforcement authorities and the legislative inquiry by the House of Representatives.

These processes have different purposes and procedures, but they overlap around the same underlying questions.

For the House panel, the immediate issue is to establish the facts surrounding the council and determine whether government institutions or officials were involved.

For investigators, the question may include whether any laws were breached in the creation, representation or operation of the organisation.

That makes Adeyemi's request to testify particularly important. His lawyers are effectively arguing that an investigation into the council cannot be complete without hearing from the person who claims to have led it.

What investigators should establish

Whatever the eventual outcome, the controversy calls for documentary evidence rather than competing narratives.

Investigators and lawmakers will need to establish:

• Who originally conceived the Presidential Foreign Investment Promotion Council?

• Was there a presidential directive, gazette, executive approval or other legal instrument establishing it?

• Which government ministry, department or agency was responsible for supervising it?

• Who appointed Adeyemi, and under what authority?

• Which government institutions communicated or transacted with the council?

• Were official documents issued to or by the council?

• Did the council solicit or receive money from investors or other parties?

• What representations did it make about its relationship with the Nigerian government?

• Who else participated in its activities?

• And, crucially, did Adeyemi act independently or within a network of officials and institutions that knew about the council's activities?

These questions should be answered from correspondence, approvals, appointment documents, financial records, official communications and other verifiable evidence.

A probe that must go beyond one man

The danger in a controversy of this nature is that the investigation becomes focused exclusively on the individual publicly associated with the disputed organisation.

If Adeyemi acted entirely alone, the evidence should demonstrate that.

But if public institutions processed applications, approved documents or maintained correspondence with the council, those actions also deserve scrutiny.

Accountability should follow the evidence, not simply the most visible person in the controversy.

Adeyemi's request to appear before the Gagdi-led committee therefore deserves consideration on due-process grounds. Giving him an opportunity to testify does not amount to declaring him innocent, just as his detention does not by itself establish guilt.

The House committee's credibility will ultimately depend on whether it can establish the facts independently, hear competing accounts and identify responsibility wherever the evidence leads.

For now, Adeyemi's central defence is clear: he says the council was not his creation alone and that government institutions were involved in its affairs.

The next stage of the investigation should determine whether the documentary record supports that claim—and, if it does, which officials and institutions knew what, when they knew it, and what authority they were acting under.