The Head of the Civil Service of the Federation, Didi Walson-Jack, has acknowledged that her office failed to carry out adequate due diligence before approving an authorised establishment and recruitment waiver for the controversial Presidential Foreign Investment Promotion Council (PFIPC).
She made the admission while appearing before the House of Representatives committee investigating the PFIPC controversy, where lawmakers questioned how the Office of the Head of the Civil Service processed approvals based on documents now confirmed to be false.
According to Walson-Jack, officials relied on documents presented by representatives of the purported agency during the 2025 Annual Manpower Budget Defence. The documents included what was claimed to be the agency’s Establishment Act and a letter appointing its Director-General.
She explained that under standard civil service procedures, newly established government agencies seeking to recruit staff are required to submit an enabling Act, the appointment letter of their chief executive, and other supporting documents before receiving an authorised establishment and provisional recruitment waiver.
“We now, having seen all the facts and observed all the documents, concede that we ought to have carried out more due diligence in the discharge of the duties of the office in issuing an authorised establishment and a recruitment waiver to the PEAC/PFIPC,” Walson-Jack told the committee.
Describing the incident as unprecedented, she said the civil service had never encountered a similar situation.
“In over almost a century of the Federal Civil Service, we have never encountered a situation like the current one. Criminals always try to be a step ahead of law enforcement,” she said.
However, under further questioning, the Head of Service admitted she immediately recognised that the document presented as the agency’s Establishment Act lacked the features of an authentic law.
“I requested to see the documents myself, and I saw that the Establishment Act was not really an authentic Act. I have almost 30 years of legal practice experience and immediately I saw it, I knew it was not real,” she stated.
She also raised doubts about the letter purportedly issued by the Office of the Chief of Staff to the President appointing the agency’s alleged Director-General, Adeniyi Adeyemi.
Comparing the signature on the appointment letter with other official documents signed by the Chief of Staff, Walson-Jack said the signatures were visibly different.
“I’m not a forensic expert, but I can clearly see that the signatures are not the same,” she added.
Chairman of the House investigative committee, Yusuf Gagdi, disclosed that forensic experts from the Nigeria Police Force had examined the documents and confirmed that the signature did not belong to the genuine signatory.
“The Police Forensic Department has already analysed the signatures and confirmed that those signatures are not the same. In fact, according to them, there was not even an attempt to imitate the signature,” Gagdi said.
He maintained that both the appointment letter and the purported Establishment Act submitted by the agency were fake.
“You have clearly stated that you acted on false documents. You have now established, just like we have, that the letter of appointment of the so-called DG is not only forged, it is fake,” he said.
“If something is forged, there will be an attempt to imitate the signature. But in this case, the signatures are completely different. So, I will not call it forged; I will say it is fake.”
The committee also pointed out that the document presented as an Act of the National Assembly lacked essential legislative identifiers.
“Our Acts have citation numbers, Supreme Court numbers, Gazette numbers and Gazette titles. The Act presented here has none of those features,” Gagdi noted.
Despite acknowledging the oversight, Walson-Jack insisted that officials followed existing administrative procedures based on the documents submitted by the purported agency.
“Everything was done in accordance with the practice in the office. Out of the 88 ministries, departments and agencies processed, we are really surprised that we were unable to detect that PEAC/PFIPC had actually given us a false Establishment Act and what has now been proved to be a false letter of appointment,” she said.
The House committee is continuing its investigation into the PFIPC affair as lawmakers seek to establish how the alleged fraudulent documents were accepted by government institutions and identify those responsible.
