Follow Us on Google
From Ndubuisi Orji, Abuja
Presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress (ADC) for the 2027 election, Atiku Abubakar, has said the interim report of the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) on the controversial Presidential Foreign Investment Promotion Council (PFIPC) is an indictment that raises more questions than it answers.
The former vice president also stated that the presidency cannot parade the report as exoneration, noting the same report acknowledges negligence and connivance within government processes that enabled the alleged fraud.
While Atiku called for an independent probe of the phantom agency, the presidency directed the ICPC to investigate the activities of the agency as well as its Director General, Adeniyi Adeyemi.
On Thursday, the anti-graft agency confirmed that the operation of the agency was allegedly fraudulent, noting that it also identified lapses in Ministries, Department and Agencies (MDAs).
Other News
It also recommended the prosecution of Adeyemi and sanctions against public officials, whose failure in their duties enabled the operations of the agency.
The ADC presidential candidate, in a statement by his Senior Special Assistant on Public Communication, Phrank Shaibu, noted that since the anti-graft agency reportedly recommended sanctions against public officers whose negligence facilitated the operation “demolishes any attempt to portray the scandal as the work of a lone impostor.”
Atiku, stated that “according to ICPC’s findings, one individual allegedly forged a presidential appointment letter, created a fictitious federal agency, appropriated offices and instruments of the former Presidential Economic Advisory Council, opened bank accounts using forged legislative instruments, engaged in widespread impersonation, and created two additional fictitious government agencies.
“Yet Nigerians are being told that State House systems were ‘above board’. Both claims cannot comfortably coexist. If there was connivance, who connived? If public officers were negligent, who are they? Who granted access to government offices? Who recognised this supposed Director-General? Who enabled him to operate within the machinery of government?”
