Our attention has been drawn to the interim report of investigation submitted by the ICPC chairman on its investigation activities over the Presidential Foreign Investment Promotion Council (PFIPC). The ICPC’s interim report on the so-called PFIPC appears more concerned with exonerating institutions than with exposing the full criminal enterprise behind one of the most embarrassing impersonation scandals in recent history.
While the Commission deserves credit for confirming that neither the PFIPC nor the office of its purported Director-General ever existed in law, its report leaves disturbing gaps that cannot be ignored.
The greatest mystery is the alleged appointment letter.
The ICPC categorically declared that the appointment letter “did not originate from the Presidency.” That is a serious forensic conclusion. However, the obvious question is: if it did not originate from the Presidency, where did it originate?
Forgery is not an act of spontaneous generation. Every forged document has an author, a point of origin, a device on which it was prepared, and persons who participated in its production or circulation. If the Commission possesses sufficient forensic evidence to eliminate the Presidency as the source, then it should equally possess the evidence necessary to identify the actual source of the document. A criminal investigation that establishes where a document did not come from but cannot establish where it did come from is, at best, incomplete.
Even more troubling is the contradiction within the report itself.
On one hand, the ICPC asserts that “no weaknesses were found in the systems of the State House.” On the other hand, it admits that “weaknesses in verification, inter-agency oversight and government processes were exploited with some level of negligence and connivance.”
Both findings cannot comfortably stand together.
If there were truly no weaknesses in the Presidency or the State House, how did an entirely fictitious government agency allegedly operate under the name of the President, occupy offices associated with government, issue official correspondence, interact with public institutions, open bank accounts, and enjoy apparent legitimacy over a considerable period without detection?
The Commission’s use of the word ” connivance ” is perhaps the most significant revelation in the report. Connivance is not negligence. It denotes deliberate cooperation or complicity. If public officers connived in sustaining this fraud, Nigerians are entitled to know who they are, the offices they occupy, the roles they played, and whether criminal charges, not merely administrative sanctions, will follow.
The recommendation for mere administrative sanctions raises further concerns. Where public officers knowingly facilitate forgery, impersonation, or abuse of public office, the applicable sanctions are not merely disciplinary. Such conduct may constitute offences under the Criminal Code, the Penal Code, the ICPC Act, and other relevant criminal statutes. Administrative discipline cannot substitute for criminal accountability.
Another issue deserving scrutiny is the timing and nature of the report itself. The Commission repeatedly describes its findings as an interim report, meaning that investigations are still ongoing. If investigations remain incomplete, particularly regarding collaborators, financial transactions, and the source of forged documents, why make sweeping and categorical pronouncements that appear calculated to absolve certain institutions before all the facts have been established?
The purpose of a criminal investigation is not simply to declare documents fake. It is to identify every participant in the criminal enterprise, trace the origin of forged instruments, establish the flow of benefits, expose official collaborators, and ensure that everyone involved is brought to justice.
Until the ICPC tells Nigerians who forged the appointment letter, where it was forged, who facilitated its use, how government systems were penetrated, and who benefitted from the scheme, the investigation remains unfinished.
The report may have answered whether the appointment was fake. It has not satisfactorily answered who, how, where, and with whose assistance the fraud was perpetrated.
Those are the questions Nigerians deserve answers to, not conclusions that leave the most important links in the chain of criminal responsibility missing.
Alex Ter Adum, PhD
DDG THE NARRATIVE FORCE
