The Head of the Civil Service of the Federation (HCSF), Mrs. Esther Didi Walson-Jack, has admitted that her office failed to carry out adequate due diligence before approving recruitment requests for the controversial Presidential Economic Advisory Council (PEAC) and Presidential Foreign Investment Promotion Council (PFIPC).

Walson-Jack stated this on Wednesday while appearing before the House of Representatives Ad-hoc Committee investigating the alleged creation of the agencies and the use of forged documents to obtain government approvals.

The committee said its investigation had uncovered what it described as a coordinated scheme involving fake appointment letters, fabricated legislative documents and fictitious government offices used to secure official recognition for the purported agencies.

Addressing lawmakers, the Head of Service acknowledged that her office acted on documents that were later found to be fraudulent.

“We now, having seen all the facts and observed all the documents, concede that we ought to have carried out more due diligence in the discharge of the duties of the office in issuing an authorised establishment and a recruitment waiver to the PEAC/PFIPC,” she said.

According to Walson-Jack, officials representing the purported agency appeared before the Office of the Head of Service during the 2025 Annual Manpower Budget Defence exercise, presenting what purported to be an Establishment Act and a letter appointing a Director-General.

She explained that, under established civil service procedures, newly created federal agencies seeking recruitment approvals are expected to present an enabling Act, the appointment letter of their chief executive and other supporting documents.

Her office, she said, processed the request based on the documents submitted.

“In over almost a century of the Federal Civil Service, we have never encountered a situation like the current one. Criminals always try to be a step ahead of law enforcement,” she said.

However, under questioning by lawmakers, Walson-Jack admitted that the Establishment Act presented by the purported agency was not genuine.

“I requested to see the documents myself and I saw that the Establishment Act was not really an authentic Act. I have almost 30 years of legal practice experience and immediately I saw it, I knew it was not,” she said.

She also questioned the authenticity of the appointment letter allegedly issued from the Office of the Chief of Staff to the President after comparing it with genuine official correspondence.

“I’m not a forensic expert, but I can clearly see that the signatures are not the same,” she added.

The committee chairman disclosed that forensic analysis conducted by the Nigeria Police had confirmed that the signatures on the document were completely different.

“The police forensic department has already analysed the signatures and confirmed that those signatures are not the same. In fact, according to them, there was not even an attempt to imitate the signature,” he said.

He added that investigations had established that both the appointment letter and the purported Act establishing the agency were fake.

“You have clearly stated that you acted on false documents. You have now established, just like we have, that the letter of appointment of the so-called DG is not only forged, it is fake.

“If something is forged, there will be an attempt to imitate the signature. But in this case, the signatures are completely different. So I will not call it forged; I will say it is fake,” the chairman said.

The lawmakers also pointed out that the purported Establishment Act lacked the statutory features of legislation passed by the National Assembly.

“Our Acts have citation numbers, Supreme Court numbers, Gazette numbers and Gazette titles. The Act presented here has none of those features,” the chairman stated.

Despite acknowledging the lapses, Walson-Jack insisted that her office followed existing administrative procedures based on the documents presented.

“Everything was done in accordance with the practice in the office. Out of the 88 ministries, departments and agencies processed, we are really surprised that we were unable to detect that PEAC/PFIPC had actually given us a false Establishment Act and what has now been proved to be a false letter of appointment,” she said.

She pledged to strengthen internal processes to prevent a recurrence.

“We take full responsibility and we will definitely review our processes to make them more fraud-proof,” she assured.

The committee also scrutinised officials from the Office of the Accountant-General of the Federation over the issuance of an administrative code to the purported agency.

A former Director of Consolidation Account and Director of Federal Projects, Joshua Patmi Luka, told lawmakers that his office had received what appeared to be an official request from the State House seeking an administrative code.

“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. The idea was that if it was not genuine, the whole thing would be unravelled,” Luka said.

However, the committee faulted the process after evidence allegedly showed that the response never reached the Permanent Secretary but was instead collected by the purported Director-General.

According to the committee chairman, investigations also revealed that the Directorate of Administration and Support Services referenced in the correspondence does not exist within the State House.

“There is no Directorate of Administration and Support Services in the State House. That office does not exist,” he said.

He accused officials of allowing the suspect to intercept official correspondence.

“You allowed the fraudulent DG to come and pick the letter from your office instead of allowing someone from the Permanent Secretary’s office to receive it. If the letter had reached the Permanent Secretary, the fraud would have been unravelled immediately,” he said.

Responding, Luka argued that the failure resulted from the actions of an individual officer rather than an institutional lapse.

“The problem here was not an office lapse; it was an individual lapse. Somebody was supposed to deliver that letter to the Permanent Secretary, State House, and it was not delivered there,” he said.

The committee maintained that the evidence before it pointed to a coordinated operation involving fake appointment letters, fabricated legislative documents and fictitious State House offices used to obtain official approvals and access government budgetary processes.