‘Fake Agency’ Boss Fights Back With Appointment Letter

The controversy surrounding the alleged National Brands Development and Made-in-Nigeria Special Project Office has taken a new turn after its head, George Buchi Nwabueze, challenged allegations that he was operating a fake government agency.

Nwabueze has produced an appointment letter which he says demonstrates that his position was formally approved under the Office of the Secretary to the Government of the Federation (OSGF).

The development comes shortly after the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) announced that President Bola Ahmed Tinubu had ordered Nwabueze’s arrest following the discovery of the organisation operating from government premises.

Nwabueze Presents Appointment Letter

According to the document presented by Nwabueze, his appointment was for the position of National Coordinator/Executive Director of the Made in Nigeria Project Office under the OSGF.

The letter was addressed to “Hon. George Buchi Nwabueze, National Coordinator, Made in Nigeria Project Office, OSGF, Three Arms Zone, Abuja.”

It reportedly conveyed approval of his appointment for a five-year tenure beginning in July 2025, with the possibility of renewal.

The letter stated that the appointment followed an assessment of Nwabueze’s commitment, contribution and capacity to deliver on the mandate of the Special Project Office.

Nwabueze’s response has introduced another dimension to an investigation that has already raised questions about how purported government bodies obtain official-looking documents and gain access to government facilities.

ICPC Had Described Office as Unauthorised

The ICPC’s position is substantially different.

The commission recently announced that it had discovered another purported government entity operating from within the OSGF as part of its wider investigation into the controversial Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council (PFIPC).

The anti-corruption agency said the newly uncovered entity operated under the name National Brands Development and Made-in-Nigeria Special Project Office.

Following a briefing by ICPC Chairman Dr Musa Adamu Aliyu, President Tinubu directed that Nwabueze be arrested and ordered the suspension of three permanent secretaries in connection with the discovery.

The suspended officials were identified as M.S. Danjuma, Nadungu Gagare and Richard P. Pheelangwah.

However, the ICPC’s action does not amount to a judicial finding of guilt against Nwabueze or the suspended officials. The investigation is expected to establish how the office was created, how it obtained access to government premises and whether any public officials were involved.

Appointment Letter Raises Fresh Questions

Nwabueze’s decision to produce an appointment letter could become an important part of the ongoing investigation.

If the document is authentic and was properly issued by an authorised government institution, investigators would need to establish how an allegedly unauthorised office could have obtained such documentation.

On the other hand, if questions are raised about the document’s authenticity or authority, investigators would need to establish its origin and determine who authorised or produced it.

The issue therefore moves beyond whether the office existed physically.

It raises a broader administrative question: who authorised the office, under what legal instrument, and how was it permitted to operate within government premises?

PFIPC Investigation Widens

The latest controversy is connected to the broader ICPC investigation into the purported PFIPC.

The commission had earlier concluded that the PFIPC was not established by an Act of Parliament, executive order or other valid government instrument.

It also said an appointment letter previously presented by Adeniyi Adeyemi Matthew, who claimed to be the council’s director-general, was forged and did not originate from the Presidency.

The ICPC’s findings prompted recommendations for prosecution and administrative action, while investigators continued examining other individuals and entities linked to the controversy.

The commission has also raised concerns about administrative and verification gaps that allegedly allowed purported government organisations to operate within official structures.

Government Verification Under Scrutiny

The Nwabueze case has increased attention on procedures used to verify government appointments and agencies.

Government offices routinely deal with appointment letters, establishment documents, budget proposals and other official correspondence. Questions about the authenticity and authority of such documents can therefore have significant implications for public administration.

The PFIPC controversy had already revealed concerns about how an organisation described by the Presidency as fictitious was able to operate from government facilities and interact with public institutions.

The emergence of another disputed office has intensified calls for stronger verification procedures across ministries, departments and agencies.

What Happens Next?

The central issue now is likely to be the authenticity and legal status of the appointment letter produced by Nwabueze.

Investigators will have to determine whether the document was genuinely issued by an authorised government office and whether the office under which Nwabueze was appointed had the necessary approval to operate.

They will also need to establish the roles, if any, played by public officials in facilitating the office’s activities.

For Nwabueze, the appointment letter provides a basis for challenging the description of his organisation as a fake agency.

For the ICPC, however, the document’s existence alone would not necessarily establish that the organisation had lawful status. Its authority, provenance and compliance with government procedures would still need to be verified.

A Wider Governance Issue

The unfolding dispute highlights a broader issue about accountability and administrative controls within government.

Government agencies and special project offices are expected to operate under clearly defined mandates, with appropriate approval, funding and oversight arrangements.

Where uncertainty exists over an organisation’s legal status, questions can arise about its ability to exercise public authority or represent itself as a Federal Government institution.

The investigation therefore has implications beyond the individuals involved.

It could lead to recommendations aimed at improving the verification of appointments, government offices, official documents and organisations operating within public facilities.

For now, Nwabueze’s appointment letter has added a fresh piece of evidence to an already complex investigation.

Whether it ultimately supports his claim of legitimate appointment or raises further questions will depend on the outcome of the verification process.

The ICPC has yet to make a final judicial determination on Nwabueze’s claims, and allegations surrounding the office remain subject to investigation.

As the probe continues, the key questions will be who authorised the office, whether the appointment letter is genuine, what legal instrument established the organisation and how it gained access to government premises.

This report presents the competing positions attributed to Nwabueze and the ICPC. The allegations against individuals remain allegations unless established through the appropriate investigative or judicial process.