The Senate on Tuesday said it could not intervene in the controversy surrounding the alleged Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council (PFIPC), insisting that the matter is already before the courts and that no formal petition has been submitted to the National Assembly.
The upper chamber said although the controversial agency has a budget allocation in the 2026 Appropriation Act, it has no legal basis to launch an investigation unless it receives a petition from any of the parties involved or any concerned Nigerian.
The clarification comes as public attention continues to focus on the N1.3 billion allocation to the council in the 2026 budget and the controversy over the status of its alleged Director-General, Prince Adeniyi Adeyemi.
Speaking with journalists after Tuesday’s plenary, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Media and Publicity, Senator Yemi Adaramodu, said the legislature would not interfere in a matter that is already before the courts.
He explained that the issue had become *sub judice*, meaning it is undergoing judicial determination, making it inappropriate for the Senate to comment extensively or initiate legislative action at this stage.
Adaramodu said the disagreement over the agency and its leadership falls within the responsibilities of the executive arm of government.
According to him, the dispute should be resolved by the relevant authorities within the Presidency, particularly those connected with the Office of the Chief of Staff to the President and the individual claiming to be the council’s Director-General.
“The allegations and counter-allegations over a fake agency and its director-general are all within the executive, which should be sorted out by it, specifically between the Office of the Chief of Staff and the alleged fake DG,” he said.
The senator also rejected suggestions that the National Assembly created the controversial budget line or inserted the allocation into the Appropriation Act without due process.
He maintained that lawmakers were not responsible for carrying out background checks on persons appointed to head ministries, departments and agencies of government.
According to him, the legislature only conducts screening where the Constitution or existing laws require Senate confirmation.
Adaramodu noted that if Adeyemi had been one of the presidential nominees whose appointment required Senate approval, the issue might have been connected to the National Assembly.
He stressed, however, that this was not the case.
“The budget line being referred to was not created or inserted by the National Assembly, and it is not the duty of the Senate or the House of Representatives to carry out security checks on those supposedly appointed to head the various MDAs,” he said.
He added that the Senate remains open to examining the matter if a formal complaint is submitted.
“If a petition is sent to the Senate by any of the feuding parties or any concerned Nigerian on the existence or non-existence of the agency or DG, it will be legislatively looked into,” he stated.
The Senate’s latest position follows days of public debate over the controversial budget allocation after reports emerged that N1.3 billion had been earmarked for the Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council in the 2026 Appropriation Act.
The controversy deepened after the Presidency reportedly insisted that the PFIPC is not a recognised government agency.
The conflicting claims have raised questions over how an agency that the Presidency says does not exist could receive funding in the national budget approved by the National Assembly and signed into law.
The development has also triggered concerns about the integrity of Nigeria’s budget preparation process, with many Nigerians demanding explanations from the relevant government institutions.
The issue attracted further attention after lawmakers recently dismissed allegations linking Senate President Godswill Akpabio to the disputed allocation.
The lawmakers insisted that the National Assembly neither established the agency nor initiated the budget proposal that eventually appeared in the 2026 Appropriation Act.
They argued that budget proposals originate from the executive arm before being transmitted to the legislature for consideration.
The controversy has also been fuelled by reports that the Office of the Secretary to the Government of the Federation (OSGF) received and processed official correspondence from the Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council several months before the Presidency publicly denied that the agency exists.
The reported correspondence has raised fresh questions about whether different government offices treated the council as an official institution before the controversy became public.
At the centre of the dispute is Prince Adeniyi Adeyemi, who claims to be the Director-General of the PFIPC.
Adeyemi is currently standing trial before the Federal High Court in Abuja on charges bordering on conspiracy, forgery and impersonation.
The Federal Government alleges that he falsely presented himself as the head of the council and engaged in activities linked to the disputed agency.
As part of the prosecution’s case, the Federal Government has listed the Chief of Staff to the President, Femi Gbajabiamila, and 10 other individuals as witnesses expected to testify during the trial.
The case is expected to determine key issues surrounding the authenticity of the agency and the claims made by Adeyemi regarding his appointment.
The legal proceedings have made the matter even more sensitive, with the Senate insisting that it will avoid actions that could interfere with the court process.
Under legislative practice, lawmakers generally refrain from debating matters that are actively before the courts to avoid influencing judicial proceedings.
This principle, commonly referred to as sub judice, is intended to protect the independence of the judiciary and ensure that legal disputes are resolved through the courts without outside interference.
They argue that the issue highlights the need for stronger coordination among government institutions to ensure that only duly recognised agencies receive public funds.
Others have called for greater transparency in the preparation and review of annual budgets to prevent similar controversies in the future.
For now, however, the Senate has made it clear that it will not step into the matter unless it receives a formal petition or the courts conclude the ongoing case.