Why we didn't call Gbajabiamila for questioning - Reps panel chair

Yusuf Gagdi, the chairman of the House of Representatives committee looking into the alleged creation and activities of the Presidential Foreign Investment Promotion Council (PFIPC), explained why they did not invite Femi Gbajabiamila, President Bola Tinubu's Chief of Staff. Documents link Mr Gbajabiamila to the controversial agency, but Mr Gagdi said the investigation is not focused on him or any other individual. Instead, the goal is to find out how an agency without proper legal backing became part of the federal government's system.

Mr Gagdi, who is the representative for Pankshin/Kanke/Kanam in Plateau State, shared these details during an interview on Arise Television. This was hours after the committee made public its preliminary findings about the alleged agency.

On Wednesday in Abuja, the committee cleared Mr Gbajabiamila, who is a former speaker of the House. Allegations against him include receiving ₦400 million through proxies related to appointments at the fake organization and misusing his position to intimidate people and media.

Mr Gbajabiamila has denied all accusations and has filed a ₦15 billion defamation lawsuit against Mr Adeyemi, who made the claims. Mr Gagdi clarified that the House gave the committee a broad task. They need to see if the PFIPC has any legal basis, if the documents used for its formation are real, and how it accessed government resources.

"People think the entire committee is about Femi Gbajabiamila, but that is not true," he said. "There are many issues and terms given to the committee by the House of Representatives regarding the activities of this unestablished agency."

Mr Gagdi explained that the committee did not call Mr Gbajabiamila because their main job is to find out how the alleged agency was created, not to summon individuals named in documents related to it. He said the committee publicized its investigation and asked the public and relevant institutions to submit documents and memoranda.

"In the beginning, what is the procedure of investigation? We wrote to national newspapers and even some media houses. We placed advertisements for people to submit memoranda," he said.

The chairman noted that their job is to find out who set up the agency and under what authority. "If our job was to find out how the agency came into being, who created it? It’s not for Femi," he said.

He shared that Nigerian government agencies can be set up through laws passed by the National Assembly or by executive orders if allowed by the constitution. The committee first needed to know the legal basis for the PFIPC. "That was the first thing we needed to establish," he stated.

During their investigation, the committee found documents and correspondence involving several people and government bodies, including Mr Gbajabiamila. Mr Gagdi said the Chief of Staff became part of the investigation because documents the committee gathered mentioned him, not because they wanted to focus on him from the start.

"People want us to make the Chief of Staff the main focus of the matter. Our aim is to make the entire federal government the main focus of the investigation," Mr Gagdi said. He added that if someone is named in a petition or memorandum, the committee could invite that person to answer questions.

He also responded to claims that the committee held private meetings during the investigation. He said the only closed meeting involved Mr Adeyemi, who was invited while in police custody. The committee had asked the police to bring Mr Adeyemi to the National Assembly, but the police refused because of a court order keeping him in custody.

Mr Gagdi said the committee accepted the police's reasoning since the National Assembly must respect court rulings. He dismissed claims that the committee kept its proceedings hidden from the public. He defended the committee's choice to look into the broader circumstances around the alleged agency, despite ongoing criminal allegations against Mr Adeyemi.

He said the committee was careful not to investigate matters currently in court. The court case is about Mr Adeyemi's alleged fraudulent actions. Meanwhile, the House's investigation will focus on how the claimed agency got into the federal government's budget and administrative systems.

"What is in court concerns the activities of the DG and his suspected fraudulent actions. That is in court," he said. He argued that Parliament can still investigate administrative questions related to the agency even when those matters are not in court.

Mr Gagdi rejected the idea that the National Assembly should be blamed for the agency's creation. He said the Executive is mainly responsible for checking the legality of agencies during the federal budget process. "The National Assembly's job in the budget process is not to check if agencies are legal or illegal," he said.

He explained that ministries and departments should vet proposals from agencies before they reach the National Assembly. The National Assembly mainly reviews proposed allocations and does not independently verify every agency's legal status.

He acknowledged that the committee could suggest ways to improve safeguards against similar situations. Mr Gagdi said they released their preliminary findings because Nigerians were worried and wanted to know what the committee discovered.

He said they got approval from the House Speaker, Abbas Tajudeen, to share the preliminary findings while they continue their work. "When the House meets again, we aim to tidy up and present a full report to them," he said.

The committee is expected to carry out more inquiries before submitting its final report to the House. In the preliminary findings, the committee said it found no evidence of a National Assembly Act that formed the PFIPC, even though documents claimed it was created under a law.

They also stated that the document presented as the enabling Act, a letter from the Presidency to start the agency, and the appointment letter for its supposed Director-General, Mr Adeyemi, were fake. The committee found 58 bank accounts allegedly tied to Mr Adeyemi through his Bank Verification Number (BVN), with some linked to 12 different agencies.

They mentioned that security and anti-corruption agencies like the EFCC, ICPC, SSS, and NPF provided documents showing that investigations into parts of the matter are ongoing. The committee stressed that these findings are preliminary and that further investigation is needed to clarify the roles of those involved before a full report can be made to the House.