Fake Agencies, Bloated Government – Why Nigeria Still Needs Oronsaye Report
By Blaise Udunze
Nigeria’s latest fake government agencies scandal has moved beyond an embarrassing case of impersonation. These absurd scenarios have exposed something far more disturbing, bringing to the fore the weaknesses in the country’s machinery of government.
The recurrence is alarming as the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) has now uncovered a second allegedly fictitious government agency. This time, it is said to be operating from within the premises of the Office of the Secretary to the Government of the Federation (OSGF). President Bola Ahmed Tinubu has ordered the arrest of the alleged promoter and the suspension of three federal Permanent Secretaries pending investigation.
The new organisation, called the National Brands Development and Made-in-Nigeria Special Project Office, was allegedly allocated office space within the OSGF without presidential authorisation. ICPC Chairman Musa Adamu Aliyu said the discovery emerged from the broader investigation into the earlier Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council (PFIPC) scandal and alleged weaknesses in public-service procedures.
This should worry every Nigerian. Not simply because a man allegedly created a fake government institution. But because two allegedly fake government institutions were able to acquire the appearance of legitimacy from within the government system itself.
That raises a much bigger question. This is to say, if the government can identify and condemn a fictitious agency for being unnecessary, unauthorised and fraudulent, what about the many legitimate agencies whose functions overlap with those of other government institutions and which the Oronsaye Report already recommended should be abolished, merged or returned to ministries? That is the uncomfortable question this administration cannot avoid.
The Oronsaye Report, submitted more than a decade ago, identified the proliferation of federal agencies as a major source of bureaucratic duplication and cost. It recommended reducing 263 statutory agencies to 161, abolishing 38, merging 52 and reverting 14 to ministerial departments.
Nigeria’s problem, therefore, is not merely that fake agencies can emerge. It is that the government has created an environment in which the boundaries between ministries, agencies, councils, committees, special projects and intervention offices can become so crowded and confusing that even the state itself appears vulnerable to institutional impersonation. The PFIPC case illustrates this perfectly.
According to ABC News Australia, PFIPC appeared remarkably authentic. One of the most concerning issues in this embarrassing incident is that it reportedly had an office inside the Federal Secretariat, a website carrying government imagery and social-media platforms. Not to mention the funding and even approval to recruit more than 300 employees. This further revealed a huge lacuna in the government space as its purported director-general, Adeniyi Adeyemi, reportedly interacted with senior government officials, regulators, ministers and foreign diplomats.
That is not what a simple roadside scam looks like. It is what happens when institutional verification mechanisms fail.
Even more revealing is the fact that the Nigerian Investment Promotion Council reportedly raised concerns in 2025 that PFIPC appeared to operate at “cross-purposes” with it. That point deserves particular attention.
If the Nigerian Investment Promotion Council, the legitimate government institution responsible for promoting investment, could reportedly identify an organisation operating in the same space, why did it take so long for the wider government system to shut it down?
That question goes straight to the heart of the problem. Nigeria does not merely have an agency-proliferation problem. It has a verification, coordination and accountability problem.
And the latest discovery makes that problem even harder to dismiss. According to ICPC, the second allegedly fake institution was not merely operating somewhere outside government. It was allegedly given office accommodation inside the OSGF itself. At the moment, it is said that three Permanent Secretaries have now been suspended. This, it was said would enable the commission to investigate how the organisation gained access to government premises and what roles officials may have played.
The government deserves credit for acting decisively once these discoveries came to light. The President ordered an investigation into PFIPC. He has now ordered the arrest of the promoter of the second alleged fake agency and suspended three Permanent Secretaries.
But decisive action after discovery is not enough. By every ethical standard, the fact remains that good governance is not only about catching wrongdoing. For certainty, it is also about designing systems that make wrongdoing difficult in the first place.
And this is where the Tinubu administration should thoroughly face uncomfortable questions. Who authorises an agency to occupy federal government premises? Who verifies the legal instrument establishing such an institution? Who confirms that an alleged presidential appointment is genuine? Who checks whether a purported government agency already duplicates an existing institution? Who authorises recruitment? Who verifies websites, official seals, letterheads, budgetary allocations and bank accounts? Who monitors the use of government office space? Who reconciles the list of legally established agencies with those physically operating inside government buildings? Also, if these controls existed and functioned effectively, how did two allegedly fictitious institutions get this far?
The ABC investigation makes the issue even more troubling. PFIPC reportedly had an office, funding, government-looking branding and access to officials, while its purported head moved through government circles for years.
The lesson is obvious, and this is to say that a government can have too many institutions and still have too little institutional control. That is the irony Nigeria must confront.
The Oronsaye Report was never simply about saving money by reducing the number of agencies. It was about making government coherent. When multiple institutions perform similar functions, accountability becomes blurred. When accountability becomes blurred, responsibility becomes difficult to establish. When responsibility becomes difficult to establish, institutional loopholes emerge. And when loopholes emerge, individuals can potentially exploit the appearance of government authority.