The controversy surrounding the Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council has taken a fresh turn. Adeniyi Adeyemi Matthew has explained why he established the agency after authorities declared it unauthorised.
ABUJA, NIGERIA — Adeniyi Adeyemi Matthew, the embattled Director-General of the Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council, has defended his decision to establish the organisation, saying it was created to promote foreign intervention initiatives and support national development. His explanation comes after Nigerian authorities described the council as an unauthorised body.
According to Matthew, the organisation was established with the intention of attracting international partnerships and supporting programmes that could contribute to Nigeria’s economic and social development. He maintained that the initiative was not designed to mislead members of the public or operate outside the law. His comments followed growing public scrutiny after government agencies distanced themselves from the council.
Speaking on the controversy, Adeniyi Adeyemi Matthew said his actions were driven by a desire to create opportunities that could benefit Nigeria. He insisted that the council’s objectives focused on encouraging collaboration with international organisations and investors. However, he acknowledged that the agency has now ceased operations following the government’s position.
The controversy began after the Federal Government clarified that the Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council was not an officially recognised government institution. Authorities urged Nigerians to verify the status of public agencies before engaging with them and warned against dealing with organisations that falsely claim government approval. The clarification generated widespread reactions on social media and in public discourse.
The development means government agencies may increase efforts to identify and address organisations that claim official status without legal authorisation. It also highlights the importance of verifying the legitimacy of public institutions before entering into partnerships or making financial commitments. Further responses from relevant authorities are expected as the matter continues to attract public attention.
