The Director-General of the Budget Office of the Federation, Tanimu Yakubu, has disclosed that the office rejected the Presidential Foreign Investment Promotion Council’s (PFIPC) request for N3.8 billion in personnel costs, opting instead to prepare its own estimate of N802.98 million based on the approved staff establishment and applicable public service salary structure.
Yakubu made the disclosure on Friday while appearing before the House of Representatives Ad-Hoc Committee investigating the alleged unlawful establishment and funding of the PFIPC.
He explained that although the council was allocated approximately N1.32 billion in the 2026 Appropriation Act, none of the funds was released or utilised because the statutory requirements for accessing public funds were never fulfilled.
According to him, the Budget Office did not adopt the council’s proposed personnel estimate but carried out an independent assessment in line with government procedures.
“That estimate did not form the basis of the Budget Office’s recommendation. The Budget Office rejected it and made an independent calculation. That calculation produced N802.98m. This was not a concession to the council. It was the Budget Office’s own fiscal proposal,” he said.
Yakubu stressed that despite the personnel allocation being included in the budget, no recruitment process was authorised because the required financial clearance was never granted.
“There was therefore no financial clearance. There was no lawful recruitment. There was no payroll enrolment. There was no salary payment,” he stated.
He added that although personnel costs accounted for about 61.63 per cent of the council’s total budget, the allocation remained untouched.
“Not one naira of the personnel provision has been drawn. There is no personnel expenditure to recover because no expenditure ever occurred.”
The Budget Office boss further revealed that the council’s N200 million overhead allocation was never released since no treasury warrant or cash backing was issued.
Similarly, he said the N300 million capital allocation never advanced beyond the appropriation stage because none of the procurement processes required by law was completed.
“No procurement reached the point at which expenditure would arise. No ministerial tenders board approved a transaction. No Certificate of No Objection was issued. No treasury warrant followed. No treasury cash-backing followed,” he explained.
Yakubu maintained that the development demonstrated the effectiveness of Nigeria’s public financial management system, noting that existing safeguards prevented any unauthorised expenditure from taking place.
“The law did not recover money after it had gone. It prevented the expenditure before it began,” he added.
The Director-General also insisted that the Budget Office neither created nor approved the establishment of the PFIPC, stating that its responsibility was limited to assessing the financial implications of approvals issued by the appropriate government authorities.
“The Budget Office did not create the council. It did not assign its budget code. It did not approve its establishment. It did not grant its recruitment waiver. It received official instruments and did what the law required of it. It measured their fiscal effect,” Yakubu told the committee.
During the hearing, members of the committee questioned the legal basis for making budgetary provisions for the council after reviewing what they described as a purported Act establishing the PFIPC.
Committee member Abubakar Fulata argued that the document presented lacked the essential features of a valid Act of the National Assembly.
“The purported Act is very clear. It is not genuine because it did not carry the gazette number, it did not have the signature of the Clerk of the National Assembly and it did not carry the signature of Mr President,” Fulata said.
He criticised the relevant agencies for relying on the document without first confirming its authenticity.
In response, Yakubu reiterated that the Budget Office based its calculations solely on official establishment approvals, recruitment waivers and directives issued by the National Salaries, Incomes and Wages Commission.
“We do not rely on any instrument to calculate personnel costs other than the establishment authorisation and the directives of the National Salaries, Incomes and Wages Commission,” he said.
Chairman of the Ad-Hoc Committee, Yusuf Gagdi, defended the Budget Office’s actions, saying the documents before the panel showed the agency acted on approvals issued by competent government authorities.
He noted that the committee’s investigation had since established that the documents relied upon by those agencies were later discovered to be forged.
“The question is whether the Budget Office allocated budget to this agency without the agency satisfying the requirements. The answer, based on the documents before us, is no. I repeat, no,” Gagdi said.
According to him, the committee’s focus has now shifted to determining how the alleged forged documents entered official government processes.
“The agency satisfied all the requirements the Budget Office needed before allocating a budget. The issue now is whether those documents were genuine. That is what this committee is investigating,” he added.
Gagdi also announced that the Accountant-General of the Federation is expected to appear before the committee on Monday to explain how the PFIPC obtained its budget code, while other agencies linked to the matter will also testify.
“By the special grace of God, we will conclude our findings and finish by next week,” he said.
The House of Representatives set up the ad-hoc committee to investigate the circumstances surrounding the establishment and funding of the Presidential Foreign Investment Promotion Council following allegations that the body was created and allocated public funds using forged official documents. The panel is expected to determine whether due process was followed and recommend appropriate sanctions where necessary.
