The controversial Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council (PFIPC) was allocated ₦1.3 billion in the 2026 Appropriation Act, but the Budget Office of the Federation has told an investigative committee that not one kobo of the provision was ever spent, insisting that Nigeria’s financial-control system stopped the disputed council from accessing the funds.
The revelation has deepened the controversy surrounding the council, which is now at the centre of an investigation by the National Assembly following allegations that a “phantom” agency was smuggled into the federal budget.
Director-General of the Budget Office, Dr Yakubu Tanimu, made the disclosure during a resumed investigative hearing into how provisions for the Presidential Economic Advisory Council/Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council entered the 2026 budget.
Tanimu, however, provided a significant twist to the controversy, saying the council did not simply insert itself into the budget by submitting a funding request.
Rather, he said, its inclusion was based on official instruments issued by relevant government institutions, including an administrative budget code assigned by the Office of the Accountant-General of the Federation and establishment and recruitment approvals from the Office of the Head of the Civil Service of the Federation.
He traced the council’s institutional origin to the Presidential Economic Advisory Council inaugurated by former President Muhammadu Buhari on October 9, 2019.
The Budget Office chief said its role was not to create the council or confer legitimacy on it, but to determine the fiscal implications of official instruments already before it.
“The Budget Office did not create the Council; it did not assign its 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,” he said.
The hearing also revealed that the council had submitted a personnel-cost estimate of ₦3.8 billion, but the Budget Office rejected the figure and independently calculated the personnel provision at ₦802.98 million.
According to Tanimu, the calculation was based on the authorised establishment, recruitment waiver, applicable public service salary structure and approved costing methodology.
He stressed that the figure did not amount to approval for the council to spend the money.
Rather, he said, it remained an appropriation subject to several statutory controls before it could become expenditure.
The Budget Office DG drew a sharp distinction between parliamentary appropriation and actual expenditure, saying the appearance of a figure in an Appropriation Act did not automatically give an agency access to public funds.
He listed financial clearance, lawful recruitment, payroll enrolment, treasury warranting, cash backing and procurement approvals among the safeguards required before public funds could legally move.
“In the case of PEAC/PFIPC, the safeguard actually held,” he said.
Tanimu said the Budget Office never issued financial clearance for the council because the necessary conditions were incomplete.
He explained that the 2026 Appropriation Bill did not receive presidential assent until March 31, 2026, while another requirement — confirmation by the National Salaries, Incomes and Wages Commission that the proposed staffing and remuneration arrangements complied with the applicable framework — was also outstanding.
The result, he said, was that no recruitment took place, no payroll was activated and no salary became payable.
Of the ₦1.302 billion total appropriation, personnel costs accounted for ₦802.98 million, representing 61.63 per cent.
He further dismissed suggestions that the council could have received the entire personnel allocation as a lump sum, explaining that federal personnel appropriations are paid monthly to verified employees enrolled on the government payroll.
“The process never began. No financial clearance was issued. No recruitment took place. No payroll record was created. No salary became due,” he said.
The Budget Office said the remaining ₦500 million — comprising ₦200 million for overhead and ₦300 million for capital expenditure — also never matured into actual spending.
According to Tanimu, the overhead allocation never became a cash entitlement, while the capital provision did not reach the procurement stage.
No procurement plan, ministerial tenders board approval, Certificate of No Objection from the Bureau of Public Procurement where required, treasury warrant or cash backing was completed, he said.
The Budget Office subsequently moved to shut down any possible route to payment after doubts emerged in June 2026 about the legal status of the council.
Tanimu said the office formally notified the Federal Ministry of Finance and the Office of the Accountant-General of the Federation to withhold every instrument capable of supporting payment.
He said the instruction effectively closed the route to release.
“The system did not chase a loss; it prevented one,” Tanimu told the committee.
He maintained that the ₦802.98 million personnel provision never became payroll expenditure, the ₦200 million overhead provision never became a cash release and the ₦300 million capital allocation never became procurement expenditure.
“There is therefore no personnel expenditure to recover. The money never moved because the controls held,” he said.
Despite the Budget Office’s explanation, the hearing raised fresh questions about the documentation that enabled the council to appear in the national budget in the first place.
A member of the committee, Hon. Abubakar Fulata, challenged the authenticity of a document submitted by the Budget Office, arguing that it lacked a gazette number, the signature of the Clerk to the National Assembly and evidence of presidential assent.
He therefore insisted that the document could not be regarded as a genuine Act of Parliament.
“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.
The lawmaker also questioned why government agencies failed to verify the authenticity of the document before acting on it.
Tanimu, however, maintained that the Budget Office acted strictly on establishment approvals, recruitment waivers and salary structures issued by the appropriate statutory authorities.
He said the council’s own request for personnel funding did not determine the Budget Office’s computation.
“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.
The controversy is now shifting from whether money was stolen to a more fundamental question: how did a disputed council acquire the official instruments and budget identity that allowed it to enter the federal budget in the first place?
Chairman of the Ad-hoc Committee, Hon. Yusuf Gagdi, said the Accountant-General of the Federation would appear before the panel on Monday to explain how the council obtained its budget code.
Chairmen of relevant House standing committees overseeing the Presidency’s budget are also expected to face scrutiny as the investigation widens.
Gagdi said the committee was determined to conclude its findings soon.
“By the special grace of God, we will conclude our findings and finish by next week,” he said.
The emerging picture is therefore more complicated than a straightforward case of missing public funds: the council secured a place in the budget, but the financial-control system, according to the Budget Office, stopped the appropriation from becoming expenditure.
The National Assembly’s next task is to establish how that disputed council passed through the chain of official approvals in the first place — and who was responsible for each stage.