The Inspector-General of Police said Mr Adeniyi remained in custody under a court order and could only be brought before the committee if a competent court issued a reproduction warrant.
The Inspector-General of Police (IGP), Olatunji Disu, on Wednesday failed to produce the self-proclaimed Director-General of the alleged Presidential Foreign Investment Promotion Council (PFIPC), Adeyemi Adeniyi, before the House of Representatives committee investigating the activities of the purported agency.
However, the police explained that Mr Adeniyi could not be brought before the committee because he was being held in custody pursuant to a subsisting court order.
The development was disclosed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Olufemi Akinola, who represented Mr Disu at the committee’s resumed investigative hearing on Wednesday.
Mr Akinola told the committee that the police remained committed to cooperating with its investigation, but could not produce Mr Adeniyi while the order under which he was being detained remained in force.
He, therefore,asked the committee to obtain a reproduction warrant from a competent court to enable the police to bring Mr Adeniyi before the lawmakers.
“The IGP is committed to the mandate that the committee has. But due to the fact that the suspect is presently being held in custody based on subsisting warrants for him to be detained, in order for us to continue to relate well, we are of the opinion that the committee chairman, as well as the committee members, give us a reproduction warrant for us to be able to produce the necessary person,” Mr Akinola said.
The police position was also contained in a letter from the IGP to the committee, which Mr Akinola presented, and the committee’s Chairman, Yusuf Gagdi (APC, Plateau), read publicly.
In the letter, Mr Disu acknowledged the committee’s constitutional oversight powers and assured the lawmakers of the police’s cooperation.
But he said the police might not be able to comply with the request to produce Mr Adeniyi because the suspect was already in police custody under a court order.
Mr Gagdi clarified that the failure to produce Mr Adeniyi should not be interpreted as a refusal by the suspect or the police to appear before the committee.
He said the committee deliberately read the police letter in full to prevent a misrepresentation of what happened.
The chairman said the committee was mindful of the principle of separation of powers and would not interfere with matters already before the judiciary.
He explained that the criminal investigation involving Mr Adeniyi was separate from the committee’s legislative inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the alleged PFIPC.
“Our first leg of investigation is conspiracy and forgery, which you have taken the suspect to court. That is why on the issue of conspiracy, we are not saying anything about what is before the court,” he said.
Mr Gagdi said the House would respect the judicial process while continuing with its constitutional oversight responsibilities.
“Ours was not to engage him in such a way that will tamper with ongoing investigation,” he said.
Although the committee did not insist on Mr Adeniyi’s immediate appearance, it, however, directed the police to continue providing information and documents relevant to the investigation.
Mr Gagdi said the committee would rely on the police because Mr Adeniyi was in the custody of the force, and the police remained the government agency directly interacting with him.
He said the committee would request further reports from the police as it moves towards completing its preliminary findings.
“We will continue to write to you to confirm to us because whatever document they have on his behalf, you are the one interacting with him. So, in the reports we have been requesting from you, we request for further reports so that we can review areas and submit our preliminary findings to the members of the public next week,” he said.
The committee chairman said the lawmakers were nearing the end of the investigation and would now focus on reconciling information obtained from the various government agencies that had appeared before it.
Mr Gagdi also disclosed that the investigation had uncovered what he described as extensive forgery linked to the establishment and operation of the alleged PFIPC.
According to him, the committee had established, from documents obtained during its investigation, how the purported agency secured official recognition and how funds were allocated to it in the 2026 Appropriation Act.
He said the committee had also uncovered documents allegedly used to mislead government officials into recognising the purported council.
“We have established documents that were forged. We have established where the budget emanated, how it emanated, the document forged to misguide officials,” he said.
He further alleged that individuals linked to the purported council created fictitious identities within the State House.
“We have equally discovered that they have been creating fake names in the villa, in the State House, that do not exist at all,” he said.
Mr Gagdi said the committee had identified not just one allegedly forged document but several documents that required further verification.
“Letters have been forged. It’s not only one letter that is said to have been forged from the Chief of Staff, by the man emanating and unfolding the signature of the Chief of Staff. There are 19 different documents that were brought,” he said.
