The Chairman of the House of Representatives Ad-hoc Committee investigating the Presidential Foreign Investment Promotion Council (PFIPC), Hon. Yusuf Gagdi, has said the committee will invite the former Chief of Staff to the President, Femi Gbajabiamila, if evidence before it warrants his appearance.

Gagdi, who spoke on Channels Television’s Politics Today, said the committee’s mandate was not restricted to particular individuals, stressing that its primary objective was to establish how an agency allegedly lacking a legal foundation became part of the Federal Government’s administrative and budgetary framework.

He said, “A mandate does not restrict us from inviting anybody. But since the central attraction of the resolutions of the House is not about Adeniyi or about Right Honourable Femi Gbajabiamila, it is about first—the central attraction is, how does the agency find itself into the four angles of the administration in Nigeria? That is the first thing.”

According to him, individuals would only be invited where the evidence emerging from the investigation established the need for their appearance.

“Until evidence led you to inviting the two persons that you mentioned, then you invite them. But if in the course of engagement by the committee, the committee has seen no need to invite anybody based on the relevant available document before them, I think there is no need wasting time on summon them,” he said.

Gagdi also explained why the committee met Prince Adeniyi at a police facility instead of bringing him before a public hearing.

He said the committee had initially asked the police to produce Adeniyi but was informed by the Inspector-General of Police that he was in custody pursuant to a court order.

“Based on our principle of democracy, respecting constituted authority and proper separation of powers where you have the legislature, executive and judiciary, I think if we had coerced the police to present him, we would be insulting the supremacy of the judiciary,” Gagdi said.

He added that the committee subsequently decided to meet Adeniyi behind closed doors at the police facility, where members questioned him.

“Yes, in person,” he said when asked whether he had personally met Adeniyi.

Gagdi, however, declined to disclose details of Adeniyi’s testimony, citing the ongoing criminal investigations and court proceedings involving him.

“Conversation about what he told us is—it will be very limited in view of the fact that he is in police custody, facing prosecution in the court of law,” he said.

He explained that disclosing the substance of Adeniyi’s testimony could undermine investigations being conducted by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) and the police.

The committee chairman said the report recently presented by the committee was only preliminary and was intended to inform Nigerians that the investigation was progressing.

“We presented the preliminary report to give hope to Nigerians that the committee is doing its job and we have gotten to a particular level,” he said.

Gagdi rejected suggestions that the committee had failed to observe the principles of natural justice by not interrogating all the individuals whose names featured in the investigation.

He said the committee had investigated relevant persons and institutions within the scope of its mandate, but stressed that its fundamental task was to establish the legal status and origin of the agency.

“One, you cannot say we investigated Adeniyi, but we did not investigate Betta Edu. We investigated everybody. What you are missing is, what is the terms of reference of the committee?” he said.

According to him, the committee invited government institutions and examined documents submitted by agencies including the Office of the Head of Service of the Federation, Office of the National Security Adviser, Department of State Services, EFCC, ICPC and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

He said the committeee also advertised for memoranda from members of the public, adding that none of the three petitions it received was against former Minister of Humanitarian Affairs, Betta Edu.

“The three petitions we received, none of them was against Betta Edu,” Gagdi said.

He said the committee’s decision to meet Adeniyi was specifically linked to a petition alleging that he defrauded a contractor of N400 million.

According to Gagdi, the petitioner alleged that he was invited from Ibadan to Abuja by Adeniyi, who subsequently showed him a residence and allegedly represented it as part of the process for securing a N2 billion contract.

He said the petitioner provided evidence of four separate transfers totalling N400 million to Adeniyi.

“That was why we invited Road Safety,” Gagdi said, explaining that the committee also sought to verify the use of an official vehicle and number plate allegedly connected to Adeniyi.

On Gbajabiamila, Gagdi said the committee examined documents purportedly linking the former Chief of Staff to the alleged agency and discovered inconsistencies in the signatures and other features of the documents.

He said the committee had received several documents from government institutions and compared them with the disputed appointment letter allegedly signed by Gbajabiamila.

“When we saw the signatures of that letter, common sense, you put them together with the appointment letter by Prince Adeniyi, they are two different,” he said.

Gagdi maintained that the committee did not need to invite Gbajabiamila merely because his name appeared in a disputed document, arguing that evidence before the committee had indicated that some of the documents were allegedly forged.

He said the committee also examined an alleged National Assembly Act establishing the agency and other documents purportedly signed or issued by senior government officials.

“The same man got a fake resolution, executive order from the President, Executive Order 5 from the President, equally fake. The same man got a fake Act of the National Assembly that says the Act establishing Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council/Presidential Economic Advisory Council,” he said.

Gagdi stressed that the committee would invite Gbajabiamila if subsequent evidence established a need for his appearance.

“If the evidence relevant before us have warranted inviting Femi, if we have invited Secretary to the Government of the Federation, why can’t we invite Right Honourable Femi Gbajabiamila?” he asked.

He further said the committee was seeking to establish whether disputed correspondence actually originated from the Office of the Chief of Staff.

According to him, officials summoned by the committee were unable to authenticate some of the documents attributed to Gbajabiamila.

He said the committee also examined the letterheads, reference formats and other identifying features of official correspondence from the State House.

Gagdi insisted that the committee’s preliminary findings should not be mistaken for the final position of the House of Representatives.

“What the committee said to the general public today is not the position of the House of Representatives, but it is rather the position of the committee. We did that to respect the people of Nigeria that want to know what we have done and how far we have gone,” he said.

He added that the investigation was still ongoing and that the committee’s substantive report would eventually be laid before the House. (Nigerian Tribune)