By Gloria Ikibah
The House of Representatives Adhoc Committee investigating the purported Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council (PFIPC) has traced about 58 bank accounts to Prince Adeniyi Adeyemi, with preliminary findings indicating that more than 30 of the accounts were operated in the names of about nine agencies, companies, foundations and related entities.
The committee also identified more than 12 organisations and entities allegedly linked, directly or indirectly, to Adeyemi, raising questions about a possible network of organisations operating under governmental, international, investment, educational, charitable, foundation and United Nations-related identities. 
Chairman of the committee, Rep. Yusuf Gagdi, disclosed the findings on Wednesday in Abuja while presenting the panel’s preliminary report on the need to protect the integrity of the Federal Budget process.
The investigation is also examining the circumstances surrounding the inclusion of the purported PFIPC in the Federal Budget Framework.
Gagdi said information obtained from financial and investigative institutions indicated that Adeyemi’s Bank Verification Number (BVN) and other identifying details were connected to a substantial network of personal, corporate, organisational and foundation accounts.
The names linked to the records, according to the committee, include the Confederation of United Nations Youths, FCT Investment Promotion Agency and Public-Private Partnership, FCT Investment Promotion Council and Public-Private Partnership, Foreign Investment Promotion Agency, United Nations Youth Global Agency, United Nations Youth Global Foundation, World United Nations Youth Global Foundation, World Entrepreneurship University Limited, World Enterprise University Limited, FCT Investment Promotion Act, FCT Promotion Agency and Olubadan of Ibadan Foundation.
Gagdi said some of the entities appeared to operate multiple accounts, while other accounts were registered under personal names or variations of the identified names.
He, however, stressed that the committee had not reached a conclusion that every account, entity or transaction identified in the course of the investigation was unlawful.
“The Committee is reconciling registration records, account mandates, beneficial ownership information, signatories and transaction histories to determine the true nature and control of the identified entities and accounts,” he said.
According to the committee, similarities in the names, objectives, management structures, signatories and banking relationships of some of the organisations had created a legitimate basis for further investigation.
The panel is investigating whether multiple organisations were created or deployed using governmental, international, investment, educational, charitable, foundation or United Nations-related identities.
Gagdi said evidence before the committee indicated that Adeyemi might be connected, either directly or indirectly, to more than 12 of the entities under investigation.
He said the committee was examining whether the organisations were established or used to create artificial credibility, solicit funds, attract investments, obtain official recognition, secure government facilities or persuade members of the public to part with money.
The committee chairman further disclosed that members of the panel had met Adeyemi behind closed doors as part of the investigation, although he declined to reveal details of the meeting.
Gagdi also reiterated that Adeyemi could not be brought before the committee because of a court order keeping him in police custody. He did not provide further details about the order or the circumstances surrounding the custody.
Naijablitznews.com recalled that the House constituted the Adhoc Committee following the adoption of Resolution No. 68/07/2026 on Wednesday, July 8, 2026.
The resolution followed reports concerning the purported establishment and operation of the PFIPC, as well as its alleged inclusion in the Federal Budget Framework.
The House said its action was taken in exercise of its constitutional powers of appropriation, oversight and investigation, particularly in view of concerns surrounding the identity, operations and budgetary status of the purported council.
