Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) has faulted the Budget Office of the Federation (BOF) for lapses that led to the inclusion of the purported Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council (PFIPC) in the 2026 federal budget.
The commission said its investigation found that the Budget Office processed the council’s inclusion despite incomplete documentation and without independently verifying whether the agency had been legally established.
According to the investigation, the Budget Office relied largely on an administrative code issued by the Office of the Accountant-General of the Federation (OAGF) and establishment documents attributed to the Office of the Head of the Civil Service of the Federation (OHCSF).
The ICPC, however, said the Budget Office did not independently authenticate the documents or establish the legal basis for the council’s existence.
Records showed that the OAGF, in a November 29, 2024 letter, transmitted Administrative Code 0111062001 to the Budget Office for the purported PFIPC.
The commission said there was no direct official communication from the OHCSF transmitting an authorised establishment document and recruitment waiver for the council. Instead, the document found in the Budget Office’s records was a scanned copy.
The purported agency later submitted a budget proposal of N3.85 billion for personnel expenditure on August 20, 2025.
The Budget Office rejected the proposed personnel figure because the agency had not submitted an approved salary structure from the National Salaries, Incomes and Wages Commission.
It subsequently recalculated the personnel expenditure using the Consolidated Public Service Salary Structure, resulting in a proposed allocation of N1.3 billion.
The allocation consisted of N802 million for personnel, N200 million for overhead and N300 million for capital expenditure.
The ICPC noted that the purported PFIPC had not submitted estimates for overhead and capital expenditure. The Budget Office nevertheless determined the figures based on the proposed personnel structure, comparisons with similar agencies, the council’s functions and its size and age.
Despite the documentation gaps, the Budget Office proceeded with the onboarding process, according to the commission.
The ICPC said the office relied on informal engagements and unverified scanned approvals, with no evidence that the outstanding deficiencies were formally communicated to or resolved by the relevant authorities.
However, the commission stressed that its investigation did not establish that funds were released, cash-backed, paid or spent by the purported agency. It only confirmed that a budgetary provision had been made for it.
The investigation also found no evidence that the Budget Office independently verified the council’s establishment instrument, enabling authority, supervisory authority or presidential approval.
The ICPC further identified weaknesses in the Budget Office’s internal control procedures. Its Standard Operating Procedure requires officers to verify budget submissions for completeness, identify deficiencies and escalate concerns to the Director of Expenditure, who is expected to return incomplete proposals to the originating agency for clarification or correction before processing continues.
The commission said these safeguards were not effectively applied in the PFIPC case. It added that the budget manager who handled the proposal told investigators that he had never seen or used the Expenditure Department’s SOP, raising concerns about the implementation of the procedure within the office.
The ICPC also found that the Budget Office had no specific requirement for the independent verification of critical governance documents before newly established agencies could be admitted into the federal budget. It therefore concluded that the office’s onboarding framework lacked adequate verification and due diligence controls.
The commission recommended that the Budget Office make the submission and verification of all mandatory establishment documents and budget records a condition for including newly established government institutions in the federal budget.
It warned that the weaknesses exposed by the case could allow a purported government agency to be included in the national budget without adequate verification of its legal status.
