KEY POINTS

• Femi Gbajabiamila declared that the Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council (PFIPC) is not recognised by the Tinubu administration.
• Civil society group ARGN rejected the disclaimer, pointing out that the council appeared in the 2026 Appropriation Act.
• The group is demanding explanations on how the council allegedly operated for years and secured government funding if it does not exist.

The Chief of Staff to President Bola Tinubu, Femi Gbajabiamila, has come under criticism after publicly disowning the Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council, PFIPC, and distancing the Presidency from the alleged appointment of Prince Adeniyi Adeyemi.

In a statement issued by the State House on Thursday, Gbajabiamila maintained that the PFIPC is unknown to the Federal Government and does not form part of President Tinubu’s administration.

He further cautioned members of the public, foreign diplomatic missions, multilateral organisations and other stakeholders against recognising or dealing with individuals claiming to represent the council.

Civil Society Group Rejects Disclaimer

The statement, however, sparked reactions from the Accountability Response Group of Nigeria (ARGN), which described the denial as contradictory and an insult to the intelligence of Nigerians.

In a statement signed by its representative, Suyi Kukoyi, the group argued that the PFIPC was clearly listed in the 2026 National Budget Appropriation Act, specifically on pages 50 and 51, raising concerns over the Presidency’s assertion that the body does not exist.

According to ARGN, the issue goes beyond a simple public disclaimer and requires full transparency from the government.

The group questioned how a council now being described as non-existent found its way into the 2026 budget and passed through the legislative process without attracting objections from either the Senate or the House of Representatives.

It also queried how President Bola Tinubu eventually assented to the appropriation bill containing the council’s allocation if the body had no official recognition.

ARGN argued that these developments raise concerns about possible gaps in institutional oversight and accountability.