Nasarawa Governor and the Bigger Questions Behind the Fake Agency Scandal

By Al-Amin Ciroma

The latest controversy over a purported Federal Government project has moved beyond the question of who created it. It is now raising a much bigger question about how an organisation whose federal authority is being challenged managed to move through government circles, engage state authorities and build a nationwide network before its legitimacy came under scrutiny.

At the centre of the controversy is the National Brands Development and Made-in-Nigeria Special Project Office, an organisation that presented itself as a Federal Government initiative operating under the Office of the Secretary to the Government of the Federation.

The Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission has now described the organisation as fictitious and said it operated without the required presidential authorisation.

Its promoter, George Buchi Nwabueze, however, has rejected the allegation and maintains that the project was legitimate. He has reportedly produced an appointment letter which he says was issued by the OSGF.

That conflicting position is now part of an investigation that could have implications far beyond one organisation or one individual.

What makes the latest development particularly disturbing is the level of access the organisation appears to have gained.

According to documents and accounts emerging from the investigation, the organisation approached state governments and asked them to nominate officials as state coordinators for its Made-in-Nigeria project.

The requests did not stop with one or two states. Several governments were contacted, and some eventually nominated senior officials to represent them.

The organisation subsequently developed what appeared to be a national structure, with coordinators associated with states across the country. A WhatsApp platform was also created for the coordinators, through which activities and programmes were communicated.

Then came the event in Nasarawa State.

In May 2026, about 28 state coordinators reportedly took their oath of office at a ceremony in Lafia attended by Governor Abdullahi Sule.

The governor was also decorated as Grand Patron of the project.

That moment is now attracting attention because the presence of a sitting governor gave the organisation another layer of public credibility at a time when there was no obvious indication that its federal status was under question.

There is no evidence in the reports currently available that Governor Sule knowingly participated in any fraudulent activity. His involvement, however, illustrates how convincing the organisation's presentation had apparently become.

And that is where this story becomes bigger than Nasarawa.

The real concern is how an organisation could present itself as a federal project, communicate with state governments, obtain nominations of public officials and organise a national gathering without its legal status being conclusively established at the outset.

Nigeria has seen something similar before.

Only weeks ago, another purported government body, the Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council, became the subject of an investigation after questions were raised over its existence and authority.

That earlier case shocked many Nigerians because the organisation had reportedly acquired an appearance of government legitimacy, including an office within the Federal Secretariat and an allocation reportedly appearing in the 2026 budget.

President Bola Tinubu subsequently ordered an ICPC investigation into the matter.

The latest case suggests that the first scandal may have exposed more than one isolated weakness.

It may have revealed a vulnerability in the system through which government offices, documents, premises and official relationships are verified.

A name can sound governmental. A letter can look official. An office can be located inside a government complex. A programme can carry the language of national development.

None of those things, on their own, establishes that a federal agency legally exists.

Yet for state officials who received letters from an organisation claiming to operate under the OSGF, the circumstances may have created a reasonable impression that the necessary checks had already been carried out somewhere within government.

That appears to be part of the explanation offered by the Anambra State Government.

The state's Secretary to the Government, Chiamaka Nnake, said the state received a letter from the purported Made-in-Nigeria office requesting the nomination of a state focal person. Governor Chukwuma Soludo subsequently nominated her.

She explained that representatives from states across the federation were part of the arrangement, further reinforcing the impression that the project was genuine.

That account is important because it shows how institutional credibility can sometimes become self-reinforcing.

Once one government accepts an initiative as legitimate, another government may assume it has already been verified. When several states become involved, the network itself begins to look like proof of authenticity.

Then, when a sitting governor attends an event connected to the project, the appearance of legitimacy becomes even stronger.

That is the loophole the current investigation must address.

The responsibility should not end with identifying the promoter of the organisation.

The ICPC needs to establish how the organisation obtained access to government facilities, who authorised or facilitated that access, how its correspondence moved through official channels and whether public officers knowingly assisted it or were themselves deceived.

It must also determine whether the documents presented by Nwabueze are genuine and, if they are, what authority they actually conferred.

The investigation therefore has two sides.

One concerns the people who may have created or operated an unauthorised structure.

The other concerns the government system that allegedly allowed that structure to acquire the appearance of legitimacy.

That second question may ultimately be the more important one.

The earlier fake-agency controversy should have made government institutions more cautious about organisations claiming presidential or federal authority.

Instead, another purported federal structure appears to have travelled a considerable distance before its status was challenged.

The lesson is difficult to ignore.

Government cannot depend on appearances when determining which organisations have authority to speak in its name.

There must be a clear and accessible mechanism through which every ministry, department, agency and purported presidential project can be verified before state governments nominate officials, public funds are committed or senior government representatives participate.

The controversy surrounding the Made-in-Nigeria project may eventually be resolved by the ICPC investigation.

But whatever the outcome, the questions it has exposed will remain.

If an organisation without the required federal authorisation can appear official enough to attract state governments and a sitting governor, then Nigeria's challenge is not merely the existence of alleged fake agencies.

It is the ease with which they can look real.

That is the part of the story government cannot afford to ignore.