The House of Representatives committee investigating the controversial Presidential Foreign Investment Promotion Council, PFIPC, has yet to decide where it will question the council’s self-styled Director-General, Adeniyi Adeyemi.

The development comes as Adeyemi insists that his lawyers and journalists must be present before he submits to questioning by the lawmakers.

Adeyemi, who is currently in police custody over the controversy surrounding the PFIPC, is expected to appear before the House Ad Hoc Committee this week.

However, a source familiar with the committee’s proceedings said on Sunday that no decision had been reached on the venue for the session.

Asked whether a venue had been selected, the source simply said: “No decision yet.”

The committee, chaired by Yusuf Gagdi, is investigating how the PFIPC allegedly secured office accommodation at the Federal Secretariat Complex in Abuja and obtained a budgetary allocation of more than N1.32 billion in the 2026 Appropriation Act despite questions over its legal status.

The controversy has raised concerns about how an organisation allegedly lacking statutory backing was able to operate within government structures, access official facilities and feature in the national budget.

The committee has already questioned several senior government officials, including the Head of the Civil Service of the Federation, Didi Walson-Jack; Director-General of the Budget Office of the Federation, Tanimu Yakubu; Director of Banking Services at the Central Bank of Nigeria, Hamisu Abdullahi; and representatives of the Inspector-General of Police.

Their testimonies reportedly raised further questions about how Adeyemi presented himself as head of the PFIPC and gained access and recognition within government institutions.

Adeyemi has, through his lawyers, said he is willing to answer questions publicly but wants the proceedings conducted in the presence of his legal representatives and members of the press.

His lawyer, Ademola Oyedokun, had earlier rejected the committee’s plan to question his client at an undisclosed location while he remains in police custody.

Oyedokun argued that Adeyemi should be given the same opportunity as other persons who have spoken publicly about the allegations against him.

A family source also said Adeyemi would not submit to questioning unless journalists and his lawyers were allowed to attend.

According to the source, the committee initially indicated that the media could be present but later changed its position.

Adeyemi had reportedly declined to answer questions when the committee attempted to interrogate him in police custody last Thursday because his lawyers were not present. The lawmakers subsequently rescheduled the session.

The police, however, said members of the committee could gain access to Adeyemi if they met the necessary requirements.

Police spokesperson Ani Ineidu said anyone in custody was entitled to visitors, provided the required documentation and authorisation were presented.

Meanwhile, the Coalition of United Political Parties, CUPP, has criticised the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission’s handling of the PFIPC investigation.

The coalition described the ICPC findings, which reportedly cleared the Presidency of wrongdoing while indicting Adeyemi, as inadequate and called for a broader investigation.

CUPP spokesperson Agu Bryan questioned how Adeyemi could allegedly operate an organisation of such magnitude without assistance from officials within government institutions.

He said investigators should examine the roles of institutions allegedly referenced in Adeyemi’s correspondence, including the Office of the Secretary to the Government of the Federation, the Central Bank of Nigeria and the Office of the Head of the Civil Service of the Federation.

Bryan also questioned how the PFIPC allegedly found its way into the 2026 national budget if the organisation had no legal foundation.

He said the National Assembly and relevant government ministries should explain how the N1.32 billion allocation was processed and approved.

CUPP further raised questions about the alleged recruitment of hundreds of workers and the access Adeyemi reportedly enjoyed within government circles.

The coalition said the investigation should go beyond determining whether documents were forged and establish how the alleged scheme gained access to official government processes.

The controversy intensified after investigators reportedly established that a signature attributed to the Chief of Staff to the President, Femi Gbajabiamila, was forged.

CUPP said the development should trigger a wider examination of other official documents and correspondence allegedly used by Adeyemi.

The coalition also called for Adeyemi to be given a fair opportunity to defend himself before the House committee.

Bryan argued that a transparent hearing would help determine whether Adeyemi acted alone or whether other individuals and institutions were involved.

He also called for independent professional bodies to participate in the investigation, alleging that existing security and anti-corruption agencies may not be sufficiently independent to conduct a comprehensive probe.

The House committee’s investigation is focused on allegations surrounding the creation and operation of the PFIPC, including impersonation, forgery, financial impropriety and the alleged unlawful use of government facilities and official insignia.

The lawmakers are expected to question Adeyemi on how the PFIPC was established, who recognised it, how it secured government facilities and how it allegedly obtained a place in the national budget.

His testimony could provide a crucial opportunity for the committee to establish whether the controversy was the work of an individual or whether other officials and institutions were involved.