Fresh court documents have revealed details of the criminal case filed by the Federal Government against Adeniyi Adeyemi, the man accused of falsely presenting himself as the Director-General of the Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council (PFIPC), an agency the Presidency insists does not exist.
The filings also show that Chief of Staff to the President, Femi Gbajabiamila, is among 11 witnesses expected to testify during the trial.
According to documents obtained by PREMIUM TIMES, the Federal Government filed an eight-count charge against Adeyemi at the Federal High Court in Abuja.
The charges include allegations of forgery, impersonation, and related offences arising from claims that he operated a fictitious government agency using forged official documents.
The case is scheduled to come up for hearing on July 27, 2026, with prosecutors expected to present documentary evidence and witness testimony in support of the charges.
If convicted on several of the counts, Adeyemi could face lengthy prison terms under Nigeria's criminal laws.
Court filings indicate that the prosecution has assembled 11 witnesses for the trial.
They include Chief of Staff Femi Gbajabiamila, civil servants reportedly deployed to the disputed office, officials from the Office of the Accountant-General of the Federation, a police officer, a hotel proprietor, and a pastor, among others considered relevant to the investigation.
The criminal proceedings stem from a petition submitted by Gbajabiamila after the Presidency publicly denied the existence of the Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council.
Government officials maintain that no such agency was created under President Bola Tinubu's administration and that Adeyemi was never appointed to lead it.
Police investigators allege that Adeyemi used forged appointment letters, official seals, and government correspondence to present himself as the head of the non-existent council.
Investigators also claim he conducted official meetings, communicated with government institutions, and interacted with foreign diplomats while allegedly acting under false authority.
According to the police investigation referenced in the court documents, Adeyemi allegedly forged multiple official letters, including documents used to request the deployment of accountants and auditors from the Office of the Accountant-General of the Federation.
Investigators also alleged that the disputed agency operated from an office within the Federal Secretariat Complex in Abuja.
The Presidency has further alleged that Adeyemi operated dozens of bank accounts linked to fictitious government agencies and fraudulently opened a Central Bank of Nigeria account using forged government documents.
Officials, however, stated that investigators found no evidence that government funds were deposited into the account.
Adeyemi has consistently denied the allegations.
Speaking to PREMIUM TIMES earlier, he maintained that he committed no wrongdoing and argued that the government's actions were intended to silence him.
He also claimed he had gone into hiding because he feared for his safety while leaving further responses to his legal team.
The controversy has attracted significant public attention because of questions surrounding how the disputed agency allegedly operated, occupied office space, corresponded with government institutions, and appeared in official processes before being publicly disowned by the Presidency.
Those broader questions remain outside the scope of the current criminal trial and may be addressed separately as investigations continue.
Legal analysts say the upcoming proceedings are expected to clarify many of the conflicting claims that have emerged since the controversy became public.
The prosecution will bear the responsibility of proving the allegations beyond reasonable doubt, while the defence will have the opportunity to challenge the evidence presented before the court.
With the hearing date approaching, attention is expected to focus on the testimony of key witnesses and the documentary evidence to be presented before the Federal High Court.
The outcome of the case could have important implications for public confidence in government institutions and ongoing efforts to combat forgery, impersonation, and abuse of public office.