THE discovery of a second alleged fake government agency operating from within Nigeria’s federal government structure has sparked fresh concerns about the country’s system of oversight and accountability.
The latest case involves the National Brands Development and Made-in-Nigeria Special Project Office, which the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) said was an unauthorised organisation allegedly operating from a government building in Abuja.
ICPC Chairman, Dr Musa Adamu Aliyu, SAN, said the organisation was allegedly promoted by George Buchi Nwabueze, who reportedly used different variations of his name. Following a briefing by the ICPC, President Bola Tinubu ordered Nwabueze’s arrest and the suspension of three permanent secretaries in the Office of the Secretary to the Government of the Federation (OSGF).
The latest discovery was made during the commission’s investigation into the disputed Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council (PFIPC), allegedly promoted by Adeniyi Adeyemi Matthew. The PFIPC had reportedly operated from the Federal Secretariat for about two years before the Presidency disowned it as fraudulent.
The emergence of another alleged fake agency has now raised questions about how organisations with questionable government status are able to operate within or around official structures.
Governance expert and public commentator, Dr Joe Abah, said the problem could be wider than the two cases currently attracting attention.
“Another day, another ‘fake agency.’ There are all sorts of bodies that have offices in the Office of the Secretary to the Government of the Federation and the Federal Secretariat,” Abah wrote on his official X handle.
He said some of these organisations only need “a government-sounding name, a government-looking logo and an SGF address” to raise funds.
Abah recalled an experience from his time in government when an organisation repeatedly offered him and his staff free foreign trips under the guise of a mentorship programme. He became suspicious when its promoter could not clearly explain who established the organisation or how it was funded.
“Interestingly, my civil servants, who would always welcome a foreign trip, never tried to convince me. They probably already knew what I could only sense, being new at the time – that it was advanced 419. Somebody really needs to sort out the Office of the SGF,” Abah added.
Professor Murtala Muhammad, the Vice-President of the Nigerian Political Science Association, in an exclusive interview with Journalist, said the issue should not be viewed simply as a case of individuals allegedly creating fake organisations. He described it as “fundamentally a governance and institutional failure, rather than merely a case of individual criminality.”
“Where rules, verification mechanisms, enforcement and oversight are weak, private actors can appropriate the authority and legitimacy of the state,” he said.
Muhammad said the PFIPC case was a warning about the weakness of bureaucratic verification.
“The alleged creation of offices, fabrication of appointment documents and efforts to present the organisation as a legitimate government institution point to serious weaknesses in bureaucratic verification and institutional accountability,” he said.
He said the problem was also linked to “entrenched poor governance, corruption, weak inter-agency coordination and inadequate accountability within the public service.”
“The reported attempt by the PFIPC to secure a ₦1.3 billion budgetary allocation is especially disturbing because it suggests that institutional vulnerabilities may extend into the fiscal architecture of government,” Muhammad added.
The political analyst further argued that the response should go beyond arresting individuals, calling for stronger verification of government agencies and appointments, better information sharing and tighter budgetary controls.
“Fake agencies, therefore, do not emerge in a governance vacuum; they thrive where corruption, administrative weakness and inadequate accountability create the institutional space for their operation,” he said.
He also warned that the controversy could have political consequences for the Tinubu administration ahead of the 2027 elections.
“If Nigerians perceive that a fictitious agency could allegedly establish offices, create nationwide networks and penetrate government processes without timely detection, opposition parties will inevitably frame the episode as evidence of administrative incompetence, corruption or institutional capture,” he said.
He said the damage could still be contained if the government responds with transparency, evidence-based accountability and institutional reforms.
The Executive Director of the Centre for Information Technology and Development (CITAD), Y. Z. Ya’u, similarly described the development as a reflection of deeper problems within the system.
“I wonder why Nigerians are surprised that there are fake agencies within the federal government. It is the height of naivety to expect anything other than this,” Ya’u said.
“Soon, if we are not careful, we have fake state with fake Governor and State Assembly getting allocation from the federation account,” he warned.
Former Minister of Youth and Sports, Solomon Dalung, has also called for a wider investigation, particularly over reports that the latest organisation had coordinators in about 20 states and representatives in China and the United States.
“Who appointed these coordinators? Who communicated those appointments? Who interacted with them as representatives of the organisation?” Dalung asked.
Meanwhile, Nwabueze, the promoter of the agency in question, has rejected the description of the Made-in-Nigeria project as a phantom or unauthorised government agency.
His management said the initiative was an approved public-private project anchored on Executive Orders 003 of 2017 and 005 of 2018.
“The Made in Nigeria Project has never operated as, nor claimed to be, a statutory civil service agency,” the statement emphasised.