Fake agency: Head of service admits due diligence failure in recruitment waiver scandal

By Gift ChapiOdekina

The Head of the Civil Service of the Federation (HCSF), Mrs. Esther Didi Walson-Jack, on Wednesday admitted before the House of Representatives Ad-hoc Committee investigating the alleged creation of the Presidential Economic Advisory Council (PEAC) and the Presidential Foreign Investment Promotion Council (PFIPC) without legal backing that her office failed to carry out adequate due diligence before issuing key approvals.

This is also as the committee uncovered what it described as a web of forged documents used to secure government approvals.

Appearing before the committee, Walson-Jack acknowledged that her office relied on documents later discovered to be fake in granting an authorised establishment and recruitment waiver to the purported agency.

“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,” she told lawmakers.

The Head of Service explained that officials of the purported agency presented themselves as representatives of a newly established federal body during the 2025 Annual Manpower Budget Defence exercise, accompanied by what appeared to be an Establishment Act and a letter appointing a Director-General.

According to her, under established civil service procedures, newly created agencies seeking to recruit staff are expected to present an enabling Act, the appointment letter of the chief executive and other supporting documents before an authorised establishment and provisional recruitment waiver are issued.

She said her office processed the request based on the documents presented, noting that the case was unprecedented.

“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 questioning by the committee, Walson-Jack admitted that the Establishment Act submitted by the purported agency was not authentic.

“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,” she said.

She further acknowledged discrepancies in the appointment letter purportedly issued by the Office of the Chief of Staff to the President after comparing it with genuine correspondence.

“I’m not a forensic expert, but I can clearly see that the signatures are not the same,” she stated.

The committee chairman disclosed that forensic analysis by the Nigeria Police had already confirmed the signatures were entirely different.

“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,” the chairman said.

He added that investigations had established that the appointment letter was fake and that the purported Act establishing the agency was equally fabricated.

“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,” the chairman declared.

“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 further alleged that the fake Establishment Act lacked all the mandatory features of a valid Act of the National Assembly.

“Our Acts have citation numbers, Supreme Court numbers, Gazette numbers and Gazette titles. The Act presented here has none of those features,” the chairman said.

Despite admitting lapses, Walson-Jack maintained that the approvals were granted following existing procedures based on documents presented to her office.

“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.”

Speaking further, Walson-Jack pledged reforms to prevent a recurrence.”We take full responsibility and we will definitely review our processes to make them more fraud-proof,” she assured.

The committee also questioned officials from the Office of the Accountant-General of the Federation over the issuance of an administrative code to the purported agency.

Accountant-General’s Office Defends Procedure, Blames Individual Lapse

A former Director Consolidation Account, and Director Federal Projects Mr. Joshua Patmi Luka, explained that his office received what appeared to be an official request from the State House for an administrative code for the agency.

“As part of our due diligence, what we did was to convey the administrative code to the Permanent Secretary, State House, and not to the so-called agency. The idea was that if it was not genuine, the whole thing would be unravelled,” he said.

However, the committee faulted the process after evidence showed that the response letter never reached the Permanent Secretary but was instead collected by the alleged fake Director-General.

The chairman said investigations had revealed that the purported Directorate of Administration and Support Services referenced in the correspondence did not exist within the State House.

“There is no Directorate of Administration and Support Services in the State House. That office does not exist,” he said.

He accused the officials of allowing the suspect to intercept official correspondence addressed to the Permanent Secretary.

“You allowed the fraudulent DG to come and pick the letter from your office instead of allowing someone from the Permanent Secretary’s office to receive it. If the letter had reached the Permanent Secretary, the fraud would have been unravelled immediately,” the chairman said.

Responding, Luka insisted the lapse was not institutional but attributable to an individual officer responsible for dispatching the correspondence.

“The problem here was not an office lapse; it was an individual lapse. Somebody was supposed to deliver that letter to the Permanent Secretary, State House, and it was not delivered there,” he said.

The committee maintained that evidence before it showed a coordinated use of fake appointment letters, forged legislative documents and fictitious State House offices to obtain official government approvals and budgetary processes.

It said its final report would detail the findings and recommendations after concluding the investigation.

Police Explain Suspect’s Absence

Representing the Inspector-General of Police, Deputy Commissioner of Police, DD NPF National Cybercrime Centre

Olufemi Akinola informed the committee that Prince Adeyemi could not be produced because he remains in lawful custody under a subsisting court order.

The police assured lawmakers of their continued cooperation with the National Assembly but explained that any production of the suspect would require an order from a court of competent jurisdiction.

“In our custody on fourth quarter, the Nigerian police force may not be able to produce a suspect as requested… in view of the subsisting warrant. The Nigerian police force has one of the constitutional oversight powers of the National Assembly and remains committed to cooperate with the committee in the discharge of its mandate.

“However, in this case, it will be appreciated if the reproduction warrant could be sought from the court of competent jurisdiction to enable police to comply with this request.

Tense Hearing

The public hearing was marked by tense exchanges between the committee and senior government officials. Throughout the proceedings, the committee chairman adopted an aggressive line of questioning, frequently cutting short witnesses’ explanations and steering the hearing himself. On several occasions, officials attempting to provide fuller explanations were interrupted before completing their responses, while other members of the committee had little opportunity to ask questions or seek clarifications.

The committee said it would conclude the clarification stage of its investigation before presenting its preliminary findings to the public next week, ahead of the submission of its final report to the House of Representatives upon resumption from recess.