PFIPC Probe: Reps panel declares appointment letter of agency’s DG fake, HOS testifies

The House of Representatives has described the appointment letter presented by Adeniyi Adeyemi, who claimed to be the director-general of the disputed Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council (PFIPC), as fake, following further revelations before the committee investigating the council.

The Chairman of the ad hoc committee, Yusuf Gagdi, made the declaration on Wednesday in Abuja during the continued investigation into the alleged operation of the council and the circumstances surrounding its recognition by government agencies.

Mr Gagdi said the committee’s findings, as well as evidence from the Office of the Head of the Civil Service of the Federation and the Nigeria Police Force, showed that the appointment letter purportedly signed by the Chief of Staff to the President, Femi Gbajabiamila, did not bear the same signature as genuine correspondence from the office.

He also said the Act, allegedly presented to government officials as the legal instrument establishing the council, was not an authentic Act of the National Assembly.

The development comes as the Head of the Civil Service of the Federation, Didi Walson-Jack, appeared before the committee for the second time to make further clarifications on the role of her office in granting the disputed council an authorised establishment and recruitment waiver.

How the council secured government recognition

Ms Walson-Jack explained that the controversy arose from interactions between her office and representatives of what was presented to officials as the Presidential Economic Advisory Council (PEAC) and the PFIPC.

She said the organisation presented itself as a newly established federal government agency and sought approval for an authorised establishment and a provisional recruitment waiver.

According to her, such requests are processed when a new federal government organisation requires an approved staffing structure and permission to recruit personnel.

She explained that the authorised establishment sets out the approved staffing structure and positions, while the provisional recruitment waiver enables the organisation to recruit into those positions.

The head of service said the recruitment waiver process also involved the Budget Office of the Federation and the Federal Character Commission before the application returned to her office for the final waiver.

She listed the documents normally required from newly established organisations to include a letter of appointment of the chief executive officer or principal officer and the establishment Act or other legal instrument creating the organisation.

It was on the basis of documents supplied by representatives of the PEAC/PFIPC, she said, that officials in her office proceeded with the process.

“Over the years, this office has dealt with hundreds of requests from both permanent and ad hoc federal government agencies for authorised establishment and recruitment papers, and I would like to state that we have never encountered a situation like the current one,” she told the committee.

Ms Walson-Jack said the experience had exposed shortcomings in the verification process of her office.

She acknowledged that more due diligence should have been conducted before the documents were relied upon to issue an authorised establishment and recruitment waiver.

The head of service said she personally reviewed the documents after the controversy surrounding the council emerged and concluded that the purported establishment Act was not genuine.

She said her nearly three decades of legal practice enabled her to identify inconsistencies in the document.

“When I saw that the establishment Act was not really an authentic Act, I knew it was not original,” she said.

However, she initially declined to conclusively describe the appointment letter as fake, explaining that it was printed on State House letterhead and that she was not a forensic expert.

But when Mr Gagdi asked her to compare the signature on the purported appointment letter with the signature on correspondence genuinely issued by the Chief of Staff to the President, she said there was an obvious difference.

Mr Gagdi asked whether the two signatures were the same.

“Mr Chairman, I’m not a forensic expert, but I can clearly see that the signatures are not the same,” Ms Walson-Jack replied.

Mr Gagdi then reminded her that the committee had interacted with the police forensic department, which had also examined the signatures.

He said the police had confirmed that the signatures were different and that, in their assessment, there was not even an attempt to imitate the authentic signature.

Ms Walson-Jack agreed with the committee chairman after examining the documents.

“I’m seeing it clearly. Everything is not the same,” she said.

Police forensic examination backs the committee

Mr Gagdi said the committee’s conclusion was not based solely on the assessment of the head of service.

He said the police forensic department had also examined the disputed signature and confirmed that it did not correspond with the genuine signature of the Chief of Staff to the President.

The chairman said the committee had obtained nine separate correspondences from the Office of the Chief of Staff to the President addressed to different government institutions, including the National Security Adviser, Secretary to the Government of the Federation, Office of the Head of the Civil Service of the Federation, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, State Security Services and the Nigeria Police Force.

According to him, the signatures on those correspondences were consistent, while the signature on the purported appointment letter was completely different.

He said the evidence available to the committee showed that the person who prepared the appointment letter did not even make a serious attempt to replicate the signature of the Chief of Staff.

Mr Gagdi said the alleged forgery extended beyond the appointment letter.

He told the committee that the document presented as the Act of the National Assembly establishing the council was also defective.

He explained that genuine Acts of the National Assembly have identifiable authentication features, including an authentication number, a Gazette number, and a Gazette title.

According to him, none of those features appeared on the purported Act presented to government officials.

“Our Act has authentication number. It has Supreme Court number. It has Gazette number. It has Gazette title. But the Act given to us here has none of those four features in the Act of the National Assembly,” he said.

Mr Gagdi consequently described the purported establishment Act as “totally mutilated” and said the committee had established that it was not an Act of the National Assembly.

He said the committee was being deliberate in its word choice and had not yet presented its final findings.

Head of Service accepts responsibility

Ms Walson-Jack accepted responsibility for the failure of officials in her office to detect the allegedly false documents before acting on them.

She said the Office of the Head of the Civil Service of the Federation had followed its established procedures in processing the request, but acknowledged that the process was not sufficiently robust to detect the fraudulent documents.

“We are really, really surprised that we were not able to detect the PEAC, and PFICP has actually given us a false establishment Act, and now we have proved a false letter of appointment,” she said.

She added that the office would review its procedures to make them more resistant to fraud.

READ ALSO: PFIPC Probe: How forged State House letter paved way for fake agency – Accountant-General

Mr Gagdi, however, noted that the committee’s findings did not necessarily imply that the head of service deliberately participated in the alleged fraud.

Rather, he said the evidence suggested that her office acted on documents it believed to be genuine and that the failure was one of due diligence and verification.

He said the committee had established that the appointment letter was fake and that the purported establishment Act was forged.

“It was established that the so-called letter of appointment was fake, confirmed by different agencies, and the Act presented to the head of service was equally fake, forged by the DG; it was established,” Mr Gagdi said.

Committee says more evidence is emerging

The latest development adds to the growing body of evidence being examined by the House committee regarding the alleged operation of the PFIPC and how it secured recognition and access to government processes despite questions about its legal status.

The committee has been investigating the circumstances surrounding the council’s establishment, the identity and authority of Mr Adeyemi, documents used to present the organisation as a federal government agency and the role of various government institutions in processing its requests.

The lawmakers have previously summoned officials of several government agencies as they trace how the organisation allegedly moved through government structures.

Mr Gagdi said the committee was yet to present its final report, but considered it necessary to place the latest findings on record to prevent misinterpretation of the evidence when the committee eventually submits its report.

He stressed that the conclusion regarding the disputed appointment letter was supported by multiple sources, including the Office of the Head of the Civil Service of the Federation, the police and other government agencies.

The chairman said the committee would continue its investigation before making its final recommendations.