Adeniyi Adeyemi, the Director-General of the alleged Presidential Foreign Investment Promotion Council (PFIPC), has rejected plans by the House of Representatives ad hoc committee to question him in private while in police custody. His lawyer, Ademola Oyedokun, stated on Wednesday that Adeyemi welcomes the investigation but insists on being heard in public, arguing that fairness requires he respond in the same forum where allegations were made. The committee, chaired by Yusuf Gagdi, is investigating claims of impersonation, forgery, financial impropriety, and the unlawful use of government facilities and insignia linked to the PFIPC, including how it was included in the 2026 federal budget proposal.
Oyedokun challenged the committee's plan to conduct the session at an undisclosed location and date, urging it instead to invoke Section 89 of the Constitution to compel the police to produce Adeyemi at a public sitting. He emphasized that Adeyemi is willing to appear on any date set, with legal counsel, to answer all relevant questions. While criminal matters are pending before the Federal High Court and investigative agencies, Adeyemi seeks to publicly address the origins of the PFIPC and the extent of government recognition it received. Oyedokun maintained that sensitive issues can be handled separately in private, but the core inquiry should be transparent.
The lawyer also contested the legality of Adeyemi's ongoing detention, noting that the bench warrant only authorized arrest and court presentation, not continued custody. He stated no court order for detention has been issued, served, or shown, and Adeyemi has not been brought before any judge. The committee had announced Tuesday that it would question Adeyemi in private to avoid interfering with parallel police and EFCC investigations.
Adeyemi faces public scrutiny over an alleged government agency while being held without a detention order, exposing a gap between investigative process and due process. His demand for a public hearing contrasts with the committee's private approach, raising questions about transparency in a case tied to official recognition and budgetary inclusion. If no court has seen him, the legal basis for his continued custody remains unverified.
Editorial note: AI-assisted opinion, not established fact. Full disclaimer →
