‘Reports misrepresented my role’, Director Luka denies PFIPC indictment

A Director in the Office of the Accountant-General of the Federation, Dr Joshua K. Luka, has rejected reports linking him to alleged wrongdoing surrounding the activities of the purported Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council (PFIPC), describing the reports as false and misleading.

Luka, who was identified in some reports as a Director in the Consolidated Accounts Department (CAD), said his name had been wrongly associated with responsibilities that do not fall within his official mandate. Blueprint reports

He also challenged the description of him as an “indicted” official, arguing that appearing before an investigative panel or having one’s administrative actions examined does not, by itself, amount to criminal indictment or establish culpability.

Luka clarifies account-opening role

According to Luka, some reports incorrectly attributed the creation of government bank accounts and the assignment of a National Chart of Accounts code to the Consolidated Accounts Department.

He said the responsibility for opening government bank accounts rests with the Director, Funds, and the Director, Treasury Single Account (TSA)/Government Integrated Financial Management Information System (GIFMIS), rather than the CAD Directorate.

Luka said the distinction was important because the reports could create the impression that he had direct responsibility for creating or operating an account allegedly associated with the purported PFIPC.

He maintained that such an interpretation did not reflect the functions of his office or the circumstances surrounding his involvement in the matter.

‘Code was conveyed to State House’

Appearing before the House of Representatives Ad Hoc Committee investigating the PFIPC matter, Luka explained his role in the administrative process involving a code associated with the purported organisation.

He said the code was not sent directly to the PFIPC but was conveyed to the Permanent Secretary, State House, as part of a process intended to establish the authenticity of the request.

“As part of our due diligence, what we did was to convey the administrative code to the Permanent Secretary, State House, and not to the so-called agency,” Luka told the committee.

He said he signed the letter addressed to the Permanent Secretary before travelling to Arusha, Tanzania, where he was on December 2, 2024.

According to him, it was during his absence from Nigeria that the letter was allegedly removed from the schedule officer responsible for supervising its dispatch.

Luka stressed that he was not in the country when the alleged removal occurred and therefore had no control over the document after it left the process he had personally handled.

Cites subsequent postings

Luka also drew attention to his subsequent postings, which he said were relevant to establishing the chronology of events surrounding the controversial correspondence.

He said he was posted out of the Consolidated Accounts Department on December 18, 2024, shortly after returning from Tanzania, and transferred to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

In January 2025, he said, he was again posted, this time to the Nigerian Correctional Service.

According to Luka, the sequence demonstrates that he was no longer in the CAD Directorate when subsequent events involving the correspondence unfolded.

He therefore argued that actions allegedly taken after the letter had left the process under his supervision should not automatically be attributed to him.

Denies contact with Adeyemi

The director also categorically denied ever meeting or having any contact with Adeniyi Adeyemi, the individual at the centre of the allegations surrounding the purported PFIPC.

Luka said his involvement was restricted to an official administrative process through which the relevant code was conveyed to the Permanent Secretary, State House.

He maintained that he neither communicated the code directly to the purported agency nor took part in any subsequent action allegedly undertaken by Adeyemi.

The House committee’s investigation has examined how the relevant documentation moved from the Office of the Accountant-General of the Federation and eventually came into Adeyemi’s possession.

Luka’s position is that whatever happened after the correspondence left the official process he handled was outside his control.

Rejects ‘indicted’ description

Luka particularly objected to reports describing him as one of the government officials “indicted” in connection with the controversy.

He argued that the term carries a specific implication of criminal culpability and should not be used merely because an official was invited to provide explanations or appeared before an investigative committee.

According to him, there is an important distinction between an official whose administrative actions are examined during an investigation and an individual who has actually been found culpable of a criminal offence.

He said his appearance before the House committee was an opportunity to explain the administrative process and provide information relevant to the investigation.

Calls for correction of reports

The controversy surrounding the purported PFIPC followed allegations that Adeyemi operated a fictitious government organisation and allegedly used purported official documents and approvals to gain access to government processes.

As part of the investigation, the roles of several government officials whose actions or administrative responsibilities came under scrutiny have been examined, with Luka’s name featuring in some reports.

But Luka said the reports had gone beyond the facts established by his appearance before the committee.

He called for corrections to reports that attributed responsibilities outside the mandate of the Consolidated Accounts Department to him or described him as an indicted official.

The director said he had no objection to scrutiny of public officers or government processes, stressing that accountability was necessary in the public service.

However, he insisted that such scrutiny must be based on accurate information about the responsibilities of individual offices and the chronology of events.

For Luka, his central concern is that his professional record and name should not be linked to alleged wrongdoing simply because he participated in an administrative process that later became part of an investigation.

He maintained that the evidence he presented before the House committee, the functions of his former office and the timeline of his postings should be considered in determining the extent of his involvement in the PFIPC controversy.