A video of Prince Adeniyi Adeyemi Matthew, the man standing trial over the alleged ₦1.3 billion “ghost agency” scandal, resurfaced online on Monday, reigniting debate over the controversial entity and raising fresh questions about its appearance in the 2026 federal budget.
The footage, recorded during a press conference in late June 2026, captures Adeyemi defending his claim as Director-General of the purported Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council while disputing the federal government’s position that the agency never existed.
In the video, Adeyemi questioned how the council could have been included in official budget documents if it was truly fictitious, as maintained by the Presidency and the Office of the Chief of Staff to the President.
According to him, the preparation of Nigeria’s national budget involves multiple stages of scrutiny, making it difficult for a non-existent agency to appear in the final appropriation documents without passing through established procedures.
“The national budget does not emerge in isolation. It passes through multiple layers of technical drafting, executive coordination, ministerial inputs, Budget Office review, and finally legislative scrutiny by both chambers of the National Assembly,” he said.
He argued that the presence of the council in official budget records raises concerns about the credibility of the budgeting process.
“The question becomes unavoidable: At what point in this process did references to a non-existent agency allegedly enter the official record? And if they are indeed present in official documentation, what does that imply about the integrity of the process that produced and approved those documents?” Adeyemi asked.
He further claimed that the alleged council operated accounts with the Central Bank of Nigeria, including domiciliary, pounds sterling and Treasury Single Account facilities.
“The same acclaimed non-existent agency has a domiciliary account, a pounds sterling account and a Treasury Single Account, all domiciled in the Central Bank of Nigeria. Is it even possible to open an account with fictitious documents in a commercial bank in Nigeria today, let alone the Central Bank of Nigeria?” he said.
Adeyemi also alleged during the briefing that the Chief of Staff to the President, Femi Gbajabiamila, demanded 48 per cent of the council’s proposed ₦27.4 billion take-off grant, amounting to about ₦12.5 billion.
The Presidency has consistently rejected the allegations.
According to the Office of the Chief of Staff, the Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council has no legal backing and was never established by the federal government.
Government authorities have also accused Adeyemi of forging official documents, including appointment letters purportedly signed by senior government officials, to present himself as the Director-General of the council.
They further alleged that he operated from an office within Phase III of the Federal Secretariat Complex in Abuja, where he reportedly held meetings with government officials, diplomats, foreign investors and members of the public while presenting himself as a senior government official.
Public attention intensified after it emerged that an entity listed in the 2026 Appropriation Act as the Presidential Economic Advisory Council/Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council received more than ₦1.3 billion in budgetary allocations.
The reported allocation included about ₦803 million for personnel, ₦200 million for overhead costs and ₦300 million for capital expenditure, prompting widespread scrutiny over how an agency now described by the Presidency as fictitious was captured in the federal budget.
Adeyemi is currently facing an eight-count charge before the Federal High Court in Abuja bordering on forgery, impersonation, false personation and operating a fictitious government agency.
While the Presidency has urged members of the public to disregard his claims, insisting the matter is now before the court, Adeyemi maintains that he is not an impostor and says the judiciary will ultimately determine the legitimacy of the disputed council.
