The Federal High Court in Abuja has struck out the eight‑count charge against Adeniyi Adeyemi, who was labelled the “fake PFIPC DG” after being accused of impersonating the Director‑General of the Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council. Justice Mohammed Garba Umar delivered the ruling on Monday, following a request from the federal government to move the proceedings to the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT). The decision clears the way for a fresh indictment that will be lodged in the court deemed appropriate by law.
Government says case belongs in FCT court
Rotimi Oyedepo, the Director of Public Prosecutions of the Federation, appeared before the bench to explain why the government wanted the matter transferred. He told the court that the Attorney‑General and Minister of Justice had examined the file submitted by the Inspector‑General of Police and discovered procedural gaps in the original complaint. According to Oyedepo, the documents alleged to have been forged by Adeyemi while operating the supposed agency fall under offences that the FCT High Court, not the Federal High Court, is empowered to try. He added that a fresh charge had already been prepared for the FCT court and that authorities intend to arraign Adeyemi without further delay.
In Nigeria’s court hierarchy, the Federal High Court deals primarily with matters involving the federal government that are not expressly assigned to a territorial high court. Offences such as forgery or conspiracy linked to a federal body, however, are often routed to the high court of the capital territory, where the relevant statutes designate jurisdiction. By moving the case, the prosecution aims to align the trial with the legal framework that governs such allegations, thereby avoiding any challenges based on venue.
Defence does not contest withdrawal
Adeyemi’s counsel, Ibrahim Angulu, SAN, offered no objection to the government’s request. With the defence’s consent, Justice Umar granted the application and formally struck out the existing eight‑count indictment. The decision clears the way for the federal government to re‑file the case in the appropriate jurisdiction, as outlined by the DPPF.
Legal practitioners note that a strike‑out at this stage is not an acquittal. It simply means the particular filing was flawed, often because of jurisdictional errors or insufficient particulars. The next indictment is expected to mirror the substantive allegations, conspiracy, forgery, and impersonation of a senior official, yet it will be drafted to satisfy the procedural rules of the FCT High Court. This re‑filing process is a routine step when a case is found to be lodged in the wrong court.
Co‑defendants still at large
The case, recorded as FHC/ABJ/CR/25/2025, originally listed three accused individuals. While Adeyemi, now 38, remains in custody, the two other suspects, identified only by the first names Femi and Anu, have not been apprehended. Their surnames were not disclosed in court documents, and they remain at large as the legal process continues.
The absence of the co‑defendants could affect the prosecution’s strategy. Should they be captured, they are likely to face the same set of charges in the FCT High Court, and their testimony may be key in establishing the alleged conspiracy. Police investigations are ongoing, and law‑enforcement agencies have indicated that efforts to locate Femi and Anu are being intensified.
Procedural context and what it means for the case
The move to the FCT High Court reflects a broader procedural norm in Nigeria’s judicial system, where certain criminal matters, particularly those involving alleged forgery and conspiracy tied to federal agencies, are allocated to the territorial high court of the capital. This arrangement is intended to streamline proceedings, ensuring that cases are heard in the venue designated by law and reducing the risk of jurisdictional disputes that could stall a trial.
For ordinary Nigerians, the procedural shuffle is largely invisible, but it show the importance of following statutory mandates in the justice system. When a case is filed in the wrong court, it can be dismissed on technical grounds, prompting a re‑filing that may delay resolution but ultimately preserves the integrity of the process.
Legal experts also point out that striking out a charge does not absolve the accused of wrongdoing. It merely indicates that the specific pleading was not suitable for the forum in which it was lodged. The prosecution’s intent to re‑file suggests that the substantive allegations remain serious and that the government is committed to pursuing them to a conclusion.
Anticipated next steps
The federal government’s swift action to redirect the case signals an intention to keep the matter moving. Prosecutors have indicated that the fresh charge will form the basis of Adeyemi’s upcoming arraignment. No specific date for that hearing has been announced, but court officials expect it to occur “without delay,” as stated by Oyedepo.
Once the revised indictment is filed, the FCT High Court will set a timetable for pre‑trial motions, bail considerations, and the eventual trial. Adeyemi’s bail status, currently tied to his custody pending the new filing, will be reviewed in light of the fresh charges. If bail is granted, conditions will likely reflect the seriousness of the alleged forgery and impersonation offences.
Wider implications for anti‑corruption efforts
Observers of Nigeria’s anti‑corruption drive view the development as part of an ongoing effort to enforce accountability within quasi‑governmental bodies. The Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council, though not a household name, is tasked with promoting foreign‑investment initiatives and coordinating external partnerships. Any misuse of its name, particularly through forged documents or false representation, could erode public confidence and hamper its mandate.
By pursuing the case, the authorities demonstrate a willingness to scrutinize not only high‑profile corruption but also the integrity of smaller, specialised agencies. The outcome may serve as a deterrent to individuals who seek to exploit institutional titles for personal gain.
Uncertainty surrounding the missing co‑defendants
The fate of Femi and Anu remains an open question. Their continued absence means the prosecution currently relies on the evidence against Adeyemi alone. If law enforcement succeeds in locating them, the government will likely add them to the fresh indictment, expanding the scope of the trial. Their capture could also provide additional testimony or corroboration of the alleged conspiracy, potentially strengthening the case against all three.
As the legal process shifts to the Federal Capital Territory’s high court, the next steps will involve filing the revised indictment, confirming bail conditions for Adeyemi, and scheduling the formal arraignment. The court’s docket will reflect these changes in the coming weeks, marking the continuation of a case that began with accusations of impersonation and forged documents.
