How we stopped ₦1.3bn meant for Adeyemi’s ‘fake agency’ from being spent – FG

By Paul Dada

The Budget Office of the Federation has defended the controversial N1.3bn appropriation made for the Presidential Economic Advisory Council/Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council (PEAC/PFIPC), as it insists that although funds were approved by the National Assembly, no money was ever released or spent.

In a detailed statement issued on Friday, Director-General of the Budget Office, Tanimu Yakubu, maintained that “not one kobo” of the appropriated funds was drawn because the statutory conditions required before public money could be spent were never fulfilled.

Yakubu argued that public debate had wrongly equated appropriation with expenditure.

“The National Assembly appropriated funds for the Presidential Economic Advisory Council/Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council, known as PEAC/PFIPC. That fact is not in dispute. The question is what happened next. Nothing did,” he said.

He stressed that an appropriation merely provides legal authority for possible spending and does not amount to an automatic release of funds.

“An appropriation is authority in law to make provision for an expenditure. It is not a cheque. It is not a warrant. It is not cash released from the Treasury. Before money can move, other conditions must be met.”

According to him, Nigeria’s public finance system deliberately distributes approval powers across several government institutions to prevent abuse.

“The strength of the system lies in this division of labour. No single approval is enough. No single office can carry an appropriation from the statute book into a bank account.”

Yakubu explained that although the council requested ₦3.85 billion for personnel costs, the Budget Office rejected that figure and independently calculated a personnel requirement of ₦802.98 million based on approved staffing, salary structures and government methodology.

“The calculation produced ₦802,978,783.00. That was the amount placed in the Executive Budget proposal and later appropriated. It was not a compromise with the Council. It was not a reduced version of the Council’s request. It was an independent fiscal determination.”

He said the most critical requirement, Financial Clearance, was never granted because the legal and regulatory conditions remained incomplete.

“The Budget Office did not issue Financial Clearance for PEAC/PFIPC because the required conditions were incomplete.”

He explained that the Appropriation Bill only became law after presidential assent on 31 March 2026, while the National Salaries, Incomes and Wages Commission had yet to confirm compliance with the approved remuneration framework.

“The result followed at once. There was no Financial Clearance. There was no lawful recruitment. There was no payroll enrolment. There was no salary payment.”

On the personnel allocation, Yakubu insisted the money never became available for use.

“Not one kobo of the personnel provision could lawfully have been drawn. Not one kobo was drawn. There is no personnel expenditure to recover because there was no personnel expenditure.”

He also dismissed suggestions that the ₦200 million overhead allocation became available to the council.

According to him, when questions emerged over the council’s legal status in June 2026, the Budget Office instructed the Federal Ministry of Finance and the Office of the Accountant-General of the Federation to halt every process that could lead to payment.

“The figure in the Appropriation Act therefore remained a provision in law. It did not become money placed at the disposal of the Council.”

Yakubu further said the ₦300 million capital allocation never reached the procurement stage because mandatory approvals under the Public Procurement Act were never obtained.

“No procurement reached the point at which expenditure could arise. No Ministerial Tenders Board approved a transaction. No Certificate of No Objection was issued. No warrant followed. No Treasury cash backing followed.”

Summarising the sequence of events, he maintained that each layer of financial control successfully prevented any expenditure.

“The personnel provision stopped at Financial Clearance. The overhead provision stopped before warranting and cash backing. The capital provision stopped before procurement approval and release. Each part met a different safeguard. Each safeguard held.”

Yakubu described the episode as evidence that Nigeria’s expenditure controls functioned as intended.

“What has been described in some quarters as institutional weakness is better understood as institutional resilience. The controls did not discover a loss after the event. They prevented the event. They did not chase money after it had gone. They kept it from moving.”

He concluded that there was no public money to recover because none had been spent.

“There is therefore no personnel expenditure to recover. The money never moved because the controls held.”

The Budget Office also pledged to cooperate with any lawful investigation into the matter, saying it would provide “the records, computations, correspondence and system evidence required to establish the facts.”