By Abdullahi Sarki
The self-proclaimed Director-General of the Presidential Foreign Investment Promotion Council (PFIPC), Adeniyi Adeyemi, has firmly rejected the House of Representatives ad hoc committee’s proposal to conduct his interrogation in secret while he remains in police custody, insisting that any legislative appearance must occur in a public forum.
In a statement issued on Wednesday, Adeyemi’s counsel, Ademola Oyedokun, welcomed the House probe into the council’s controversial establishment but strongly opposed the committee’s behind-closed-doors approach. Oyedokun argued that fundamental fairness necessitates Adeyemi being allowed to publicly counter the allegations already aired against him during the committee’s previous open hearings.
“We have read that the committee intends to interview our client at an undisclosed date and place. We ask it, respectfully, to think again,” the lawyer stated. “Everyone else in this matter has been heard in public, and what has been said about our client was said in public. He should be allowed to answer in the same place it was said.”
Invoking Section 89 of the Nigerian Constitution, Oyedokun urged the committee to compel the police to produce Adeyemi at a public sitting. He emphasized that the House possesses the legal authority to summon any person and enforce attendance, asking the panel to wield that power rather than resort to clandestine methods. “He will attend on any date it names, with his counsel, and answer every question put to him,” he added.
While acknowledging that criminal allegations against Adeyemi must be resolved by the Federal High Court and relevant investigative agencies, the lawyer maintained that the parliamentary inquiry into the PFIPC’s origin and governmental responses deserves public scrutiny. “That question our client is anxious to answer, and Nigerians are entitled to hear it answered in public,” Oyedokun declared, noting that any sensitive matters touching on active court cases could be addressed separately in private.
Furthermore, Oyedokun challenged his client’s continued incarceration, arguing that the bench warrant relied upon by the police only authorizes Adeyemi’s arrest and production before the Federal High Court—not his prolonged detention without a specific committal order. “No order committing him to custody has ever been made, served on him, or shown to him,” he insisted.
Conversely, committee chairman Yusuf Gagdi defended the secret interrogation plan on Tuesday, citing the necessity to avoid interfering with active probes by the Nigerian Police Force, the EFCC, and the ICPC. Gagdi maintained that the National Assembly cannot violate the judiciary’s authority or override an existing court order directing Adeyemi’s detention, as doing so would undermine the principle of separation of powers.
This legal standoff highlights a critical tension between legislative oversight and judicial processes in Nigeria. While the House committee seeks to establish the factual basis behind the PFIPC’s controversial emergence, including allegations of forgery, financial impropriety, and unauthorized use of government insignia, Adeyemi’s camp perceives the clandestine arrangement as an attempt to curtail his right to a fair defense in the court of public opinion.
The outcome of this jurisdictional tug-of-war could set a significant precedent for how future parliamentary inquiries handle suspects already entangled in parallel criminal proceedings, potentially reshaping the boundaries of legislative authority.
Beyond the immediate legal wrangling, the PFIPC saga raises fundamental questions about transparency in governance and the accountability of officials who wield unchecked authority.
Stakeholders and legal analysts are closely monitoring the committee’s next move, as a decision to proceed with a closed-door session might further erode public trust in the legislature’s commitment to open governance.
Conversely, compelling the police to produce Adeyemi for a full public hearing would ensure that both executive actions and legislative inquiries are subjected to the intense scrutiny that citizens rightfully expect from their democratic institutions, reinforcing the principles of justice and accountability.
