The Presidency says investigations have confirmed that the appointment letter used by the alleged Director-General of the controversial Presidential Economic Advisory Council/Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council was forged, as fresh questions continue to emerge over how the agency secured a budget allocation in the 2026 Appropriation Act.
Speaking during a television interview, the Senior Special Assistant to the President on Media and Publicity, Temitope Ajayi, said police investigations established that the appointment letter presented by Prince Adeyemi Adeniyi Matthew was fraudulent.
Ajayi explained that the document contained several inconsistencies that immediately raised suspicion, including the claim that it was issued by the Chief of Staff to the President, Femi Gbajabiamila.
According to him, appointment letters into federal offices are issued by the Office of the Secretary to the Government of the Federation, not by the Chief of Staff.
He also noted that the purported appointment letter carried a State House letterhead with a telephone number, contrary to the official format used by the Presidency.
"If you have seen the letterhead on which the so-called appointment was written, it shows the State House letterhead. On the State House letterhead, there is no contact telephone number. On his purported appointment letter, there is. Anybody who understands the way the system works will know that this is a pure scam and a forged document," Ajayi said.
The comments came as a civil society organisation, the Good Governance Group, released findings from an independent investigation alleging that the agency was allocated ₦1.3 billion in the 2026 federal budget despite the alleged arrest and prosecution of Adeyemi in late 2025.
According to the group, the budget entry was allegedly concealed under the name "Presidential Economic Advisory Council," which had existed as a legitimate advisory body established during the administration of former President Muhammadu Buhari.
The organisation claimed the similarity in names may have allowed the budget entry to pass through the review process without attracting immediate scrutiny.
The group further alleged that the budget contained multiple programme lines for the agency, office space was secured at the Federal Secretariat and three civil servants were deployed to the council by the Office of the Accountant-General of the Federation.
The Office of the Accountant-General of the Federation has, however, maintained that no Central Bank account was successfully opened for the council because the required account signatories were not provided.
The office also said no public funds were released to the agency despite the budgetary allocation.
The controversy has continued to generate public debate over how the budget provision was approved and the circumstances surrounding the operations of the alleged agency.
Comments
Add a comment