Fake Agency Scandal: Presidency Under Pressure As Police Arrest Adeyemi’s Father

By: Abudu Olalekan

The N1.3bn Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council scandal just got messier. On Monday, the Nigeria Police Force reportedly arrested the father of Prince Adeniyi Adeyemi — the embattled promoter of the council — deepening a controversy that keeps pulling the Presidency back into the headlines.

Adeyemi, who claims to be the council’s Director-General, is currently standing trial before the Federal High Court in Abuja. He’s facing charges of conspiracy, forgery, and impersonation. The Federal Government? It’s listed Chief of Staff to the President, Femi Gbajabiamila, and 10 others as prosecution witnesses in the case.

Now here’s where it gets ugly. Adeyemi’s father — who was reportedly at home with a family friend that Monday morning — was picked up by police. His aged mother? Left behind in shock.

Senior lawyer Femi Falana (SAN) and a couple of eyewitnesses confirmed the arrest in a phone interview.

“Police stormed the house of the parents of Prince Adeyemi Adeniyi on Plot 3, Adeniyi Dynasty, behind Technical College, Road Safety Area, Ogbomoso,” Falana said.

“The father has been arrested. There is no legal basis for substituted arrests. The young man has promised to show up in court, so why arrest his father?”

A neighbour, who also spoke to our correspondent, painted a tense picture. “They came with four vehicles, and they started harassing them and eventually took the father away. They didn’t allow the neighbours to intervene before they took him away. At the moment, there is a man in blue clothes patrolling the area.”

Another neighbour, who chose to remain anonymous, added his own account in Yoruba. “Baba was taken away to Agbomire police station with someone who came to visit them this morning. They left the mother, who is currently in shock, but we have moved her away,” he said.

NBA, SANs React

The arrest of Adeyemi’s father has triggered fresh legal and human rights concerns. The President of the Nigerian Bar Association, Mazi Afam Osigwe (SAN), and other Senior Advocates of Nigeria have come out swinging — warning that Nigerian law does not permit the arrest of relatives just to pressure a suspect into surrendering.

But they also drew a line. If Adeyemi’s father is himself a suspect or a person of interest? Then maybe the arrest has legal legs. Without that, it’s a no-go.

Osigwe, in a phone interview on Monday, was clear — don’t rush to judgement.

“I’m careful about saying such things because I don’t know why his father was arrested,” he said, adding that the law doesn’t allow police to arrest one person in place of another.

“If a person is arrested for the purpose of putting pressure on a suspect who cannot be found, or to compel a person who is being investigated to surrender, then it is unlawful,” Osigwe said.

But flip the script, and things change.

“If the person is being arrested in the person’s own right as a suspect or a person of interest in any investigation, then the law would permit that,” he explained.

His advice? Stop speculating. Ask the police.

“We don’t know the reason for the arrest. People may simply assume that because the son is involved in a criminal case, the father was arrested for that reason. We need to enquire from the police. It’s not too difficult.”

Another Senior Advocate, Prof. Sam Erugo, was more direct. Arresting a father for a son’s alleged offence? Unlawful. Period.

“It is unlawful to arrest a father for an offence allegedly committed by the son,” Erugo said, pointing to Section 7 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), 2015, which expressly prohibits arrest by proxy.

Still, he called on the police to clear the air.

“The Nigerian public deserves more information from the arresting authority,” he added.

Another SAN, Isiaka Olagunju, echoed the same position. Criminal responsibility, he insisted, is personal — it doesn’t transfer to relatives.

“It is unlawful to arrest a suspect’s father or relatives in a criminal case,” Olagunju said.

He, however, noted a caveat. If the father is independently linked to the alleged offence, then the police can act.

“Except if the father is also involved in the case, then the police can arrest,” he said.

Wolemi Esan, also a Senior Advocate, didn’t mince words either. “Arrest in lieu,” he said, “has no place in Nigeria’s legal system.”

He cited Section 7 of the ACJA, 2015, and Section 20 of the Nigeria Police Act, 2020 — both of which forbid arresting or detaining anyone as a substitute for a suspect.

“The Supreme Court has consistently denounced the practice as unconstitutional and a clear violation of the fundamental rights of those unlawfully arrested,” Esan said.

He also referenced Section 35(6) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), which guarantees redress for victims of unlawful arrest or detention.

“Any law enforcement agency that engages in arrest in lieu acts in defiance of both statutory and constitutional safeguards,” he added.

Another Senior Advocate, Dr. Wahab Shittu, delivered a detailed legal opinion on Monday. His take? The Nigeria Police Force cannot lawfully arrest a suspect’s father or any relative just to compel the suspect to surrender or cooperate. He called the practice “substitutional arrest” — and said it’s expressly prohibited under Nigerian law.

His position was firm. “The power of the Nigerian Police Force to arrest is neither unlimited nor unconditional,” he said, stressing that law enforcement agencies must operate strictly within constitutional and statutory limits.

He pointed to Section 35(1) of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to personal liberty, and Section 36(8), which makes criminal liability strictly personal.

Shittu also cited Section 7 of the ACJA, 2015, which states clearly: “a person shall not be arrested in place of a suspect.” That provision, he noted, was introduced specifically to end the long-standing practice of grabbing relatives to flush out suspects.

He went further. Sections 6 and 8 of the ACJA, he said, require police officers to inform suspects of the reasons for arrest, ensure humane treatment, and limit arrest powers to persons reasonably suspected of committing an offence.

According to him, the law leaves zero room for arresting parents, spouses, or relatives simply because of their family ties.

Citing judicial precedents — including ACB Ltd v. Okonkwo, Akpan v. State, and Ahamba v. State — Shittu said Nigerian courts had consistently condemned substitutional arrests, even before the ACJA came into force.

“The gravity of an allegation, whether ordinary theft or alleged multi-billion-naira public fraud, does not alter the personal nature of criminal responsibility or expand the statutory and constitutional limits on the power of arrest,” he said.

Now, applying all of this to the Adeyemi situation, Shittu noted that Prince Adeniyi Adeyemi Matthew is already standing trial before the Federal High Court and is reportedly on bail. That alone suggests he’s not a fugitive from justice.

He also observed that there’s been no public indication that Adeyemi’s father was independently suspected of forgery, impersonation, or any related offence. In such circumstances, he said, there’s simply no legal basis for arresting a relative to compel the suspect’s appearance.

And if the arrest was meant to pressure Adeyemi in connection with his pending trial or his public allegations against the Chief of Staff? That, Shittu warned, would be unlawful substitutional arrest — the very thing Section 7 of the ACJA prohibits.

“If the true purpose of the operation was to pressure Adeyemi in connection with his pending prosecution or public allegations, that would amount to the very substitutional arrest prohibited by Section 7 of the ACJA and condemned by the courts,” he said.

Still, Shittu was careful. His opinion, he noted, was based on publicly available information. If the police can establish independent evidence linking the father to the alleged offences, then the arrest would be assessed on different grounds.

“Should the police demonstrate that the father was arrested on the basis of an independent, particularised reasonable suspicion of his own complicity, the arrest would be assessed as an ordinary arrest of a suspect and not as a substitutional arrest,” he said, adding that the burden of proof rests squarely on the police.

He also outlined remedies for victims of unlawful arrest — approaching the court under the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, 2009, seeking declarations, release where applicable, and damages. He cited Section 35(6) of the Constitution, which provides that anyone unlawfully arrested or detained is entitled to compensation and a public apology from the appropriate authority.

His parting shot? “A bare family relationship is not a legal basis for arrest.”

Police Mum

When contacted, Force Headquarters spokesman Anietie Iniedu wasn’t giving anything away. Despite being told that operatives from the FCID carried out the arrest, he pushed back.

“I have not been briefed on the arrest. Who picked him up? Which section? Which section in FCID? The police force is large. Tell me the section, so, I can find out from them,” he said.

Efforts to reach him afterwards didn’t go anywhere. Several messages sent to his phone — including one asking whether a forensic examination had been done on Gbajabiamila’s signature — went unanswered as of the time of filing this report.

The Oyo State Police Public Relations Officer, Olayinka Ayanlade, was equally brief. “The case involving Prince Adeniyi Adeyemi Matthew is a matter of national interest and is currently under investigation by the Force Criminal Investigation Department, Force Headquarters, Abuja. As such, it falls outside my jurisdiction,” he said.

‘No Funds Released’

The Office of the Accountant-General of the Federation has waded into the controversy — and its position is clear. No public funds were released to the controversial Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council. In fact, the body never even operated a functional government account, despite applying to open one.

The Director of Press and Public Relations in the Office of the Accountant-General, Bawa Mokwa, said this in a phone interview on Monday while responding to questions about reports linking the council to a budget allocation and an alleged Treasury account.

Mokwa explained that although an application was initiated to open an account for the council, the process was never completed. The applicant, he said, failed to provide the required signatories needed to activate the account.

He said, “An account that is not concluded and does not become operational is not an account. They actually applied, but when it got to the stage where they would provide the signatories, they couldn’t provide.”

According to him, organisations seeking to open government accounts are required to complete the prescribed process, including nominating authorised signatories who would operate the account.

“Usually, organisations that are duly established will bring the necessary documents. They started the process, but when it got to the stage of providing the signatories, he couldn’t provide those people. So, there was no operational account,” Mokwa said.

On reports that the council had received funds following its inclusion in the 2026 Appropriation Act, Mokwa dismissed the claims outright. Implementation of the 2026 budget, he said, only commenced on July 1 — and by then, the controversy had already kicked off.

“On the issue of the budget allocation, yes, it has been mentioned as if the Budget Department gave him a budget, but it is just July 1 that we started the implementation of the 2026 budget. By that time, his case had already started,” he said.

His bottom line? No money was released — because there was no operational account to receive it.

“If he doesn’t have an operational account, where would they put the money? There wasn’t any money given,” Mokwa said.

His clarification comes amid growing scrutiny over the appearance of the PFIPC in the 2026 federal budget — despite an earlier disclaimer by the Presidency that the body was not recognised by the Federal Government.

Efforts to get the Central Bank of Nigeria’s reaction didn’t work out. An enquiry sent to the Acting Director of Corporate Communications, Mrs Hakama Sidi-Ali, had not received a response as of the time of filing this report.

Senate Defends Akpabio

Lawmakers aren’t taking the heat quietly. They’ve pushed back against attempts to blame the Senate and its President, Godswill Akpabio, over the controversial N1.3bn allocation to the PFIPC — insisting the legislature neither created the agency nor originated its budget.

The defence comes as public outrage grows over the discovery of the allocation for an agency the Presidency has repeatedly described as non-existent, with critics pointing fingers at the National Assembly for failing in its oversight responsibilities.

It had been reported that the controversial allocation was approved without the alleged agency’s Director-General, Prince Adeniyi Adeyemi, or any official of the council appearing before the Senate Committee on Establishment and Public Service to defend the budget.

That revelation has only deepened scrutiny of the scandal and the allegations linking the Chief of Staff to the President, Femi Gbajabiamila, to the matter. Many Nigerians are now asking how the allocation found its way into the 2026 budget in the first place.

Efforts to reach the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Media and Publicity, Senator Yemi Adaramodu, were unsuccessful. He couldn’t be reached, and a text message sent to him had not received a response as of the time of filing this report.

But Senator Cyril Fasuyi, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Establishment and Public Service, distanced his committee from the controversial agency. He insisted it was not under his committee’s oversight.

“I am not sure I have heard of that PFIPC before. Every MDA falls within the oversight of its relevant Senate committee. But I honestly don’t know the committee in charge of this PFIPC. It is not under the Senate Committee on Establishment and Public Service where I serve as chairman.

“Those that fall within oversight are training centres in Nigeria, Office of the Head of Service of the Federation, Civil Service commission, National Assembly Service Commission, Salaries and Wages Commission and PENCOM. These are the relevant agencies under my committee,” he said.

Another Senate committee chairman, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he wasn’t authorised to speak on the matter, also defended the legislature. He warned against what he described as attempts to drag Akpabio and lawmakers into the controversy without evidence.

He said, “I’m not the right person to ask. But before anybody can talk, you must k