EXCLUSIVE: Nwabueze’s own documents raise fresh questions over ‘Made-in-Nigeria’ office

Letters released to prove legitimacy trace a disputed progression from a 2010 event proposal to retroactive appointments, government office allocation and a nationwide administrative structure, but disclose no presidential instrument creating the office.

Documents released by George Buchi Nwabueze to challenge allegations that he operated an unauthorised federal office may have provided investigators with a clearer paper trail showing how the disputed National Brands Development and Made-in-Nigeria Special Project Office acquired the appearance of government legitimacy from inside the Office of the Secretary to the Government of the Federation.

An examination of the documents made public by Mr Nwabueze, alongside court papers seen by this newspaper, shows evidence that some senior OSGF officials dealt with him, issued letters in his favour and allocated him Room B53 within the Shehu Shagari Complex.

However, none of the documents examined identifies an Act of the National Assembly, presidential directive, executive order, gazetted instrument, Federal Executive Council decision or approved public-service establishment document creating the office that Mr Nwabueze subsequently led.

This distinction goes to the heart of the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission’s case.

The ICPC does not need to establish that Mr Nwabueze never entered the OSGF or that no official ever corresponded with him. Its publicly stated position is that the office operated inside the OSGF without presidential authorisation and with the suspected assistance of senior public servants.

Viewed against that allegation, the letters may not rebut the commission’s case. They could help establish the administrative pathway through which the disputed office gained government premises, official titles and access to public institutions.

From an Ireland event to a ‘16-year government programme’

One of Mr Nwabueze’s central claims is that the Made-in-Nigeria project had existed within the OSGF for 16 years and could not reasonably have been “discovered” only in 2026.

To support that position, he released a letter dated July 19, 2010, concerning a proposed “Made in Naija” event in Ireland during Nigeria’s 50th anniversary.

But the wording of that letter does not establish a government programme operating inside the OSGF.

The correspondence merely acknowledged Mr Nwabueze’s proposal and instructed him to forward it to the Nigerian High Commission in Ireland “for possible consideration.”

It did not approve the event, establish a federal project office, appoint Mr Nwabueze to public office or allocate him space within the OSGF.

The 2010 correspondence therefore proves that Mr Nwabueze communicated with the OSGF about a proposed event. It does not prove that the National Brands Development and Made-in-Nigeria Special Project Office existed continuously within the government from 2010.

Presenting that limited correspondence as evidence of a 16-year federal programme raises a more serious question: whether routine government communication was progressively converted into a much broader claim of institutional authority.

The missing 2023 MOU

A second document, dated June 18, 2024, was issued on OSGF letterhead and purportedly signed by Richard Pheelangwah, then Permanent Secretary in the Cabinet Affairs Office, for the Secretary to the Government of the Federation.

The letter refers to a “public partnership” arising from a memorandum of understanding dated October 6, 2023, purportedly executed between the Federal Government, represented by the OSGF, and the Made-in-Nigeria Project.

That MOU is potentially the foundational document for the entire arrangement. Yet it has not been produced alongside the documents Mr Nwabueze released publicly.

Its absence leaves several material questions unanswered.

Who signed the MOU for the Federal Government? Who was the private or project counterparty? What legal personality did that counterparty possess? What obligations were imposed on the government? Was the document reviewed by OSGF Legal Services? Did it contain provisions on funding, revenue, intellectual property, procurement, liability or use of government identity?

Most importantly, what approval empowered the OSGF to enter the arrangement in the first place?

Until the original MOU and its approval records are produced, the June 2024 letter rests on a foundation that cannot be independently examined.

A retrospective engagement

The June 2024 letter purportedly conveyed Mr Nwabueze’s engagement as National Coordinator and Executive Director with effect from November 1, 2023—more than seven months before the letter was issued.

The retrospective date requires explanation.

The letter also addressed him as “National Coordinator/Executive Director” before formally conveying the engagement bearing that same title. Investigators will need to establish when Mr Nwabueze first began using the designation, who authorised it and whether he had been operating in that capacity before any written appointment existed.

The letter offered him Room B53 for liaison with the International Organisations Department and referred to economic promotion, bilateral trade, investment promotion, exhibitions, expos and an economic forum.

It did not expressly create an independent federal agency. Neither did it authorise a nationwide bureaucracy, regulatory functions, public revenue collection, product certification, state appointments or federal budgetary allocation.

OSGF records indicate that Mr Pheelangwah occupied the Cabinet Affairs position during the period in question. That makes the designation on the letter temporally plausible, but it does not answer the legal question: what authority did he possess to create or appoint the head of a national project office domiciled in a different OSGF department?

The phrase “I am directed” also demands documentary proof. Investigators must identify who issued the direction, when it was given and the file on which the approval was recorded.

Proposal exposes missing status

Perhaps the most consequential document released by Mr Nwabueze is an April 17, 2025 memorandum in which Nadungu Gagare, Permanent Secretary in the Political and Economic Affairs Office, asked the SGF to grant the Made-in-Nigeria initiative “Special Project Status.”

The proposal reportedly argued that formal status would enhance the project’s credibility and performance.

It also recommended that the project’s activities be reviewed and that operational modalities be developed, including its objectives, implementation framework, monitoring system, funding arrangements, structure and responsibilities of participating institutions.

The document creates a direct contradiction.

If the project had already existed as a properly constituted federal office for years, why did it still require special-project status in April 2025? Why were its funding, structure, objectives and operating arrangements yet to be developed?

Rather than proving that a federal office already existed, the proposal appears to show that officials were still attempting to formalise and construct one.

Mr Nwabueze has also referred to an alleged subsequent approval by the SGF. That approval must be obtained directly from the OSGF registry, together with the complete minute sheet and any conditions attached to it.

A notation approving further consideration of a proposal would not automatically authorise every national structure, financial arrangement or regulatory power later claimed by the project.

Second appointment expanded the operation

A further letter dated October 3, 2025, with reference number OSGF/MIN/59310/11/205, purportedly appointed Mr Nwabueze as National Coordinator and Executive Director for five years beginning in July 2025.

Once again, the appointment took effect retrospectively.

The letter reportedly authorised Mr Nwabueze to supervise programmes, projects and policies, coordinate regional and state officials across the federation and organise exhibitions, trade expos and economic summits.

This was significantly broader than the limited liaison and event-promotion language contained in the June 2024 engagement letter.

But the October letter still did not identify the legal instrument that created the office or empowered a permanent secretary to establish a five-year, renewable nationwide administrative structure.

It reportedly stated that Mr Nwabueze served “at the pleasure of the Secretary to the Government of the Federation.” That language also sits uneasily with any suggestion that the appointment conferred an independent, guaranteed five-year entitlement.

The progression is striking: a proposed overseas event in 2010 became an alleged public partnership in 2023; that partnership produced a retrospective engagement and government office space in 2024; a request for special-project status followed in April 2025; and, months later, a five-year appointment carrying nationwide coordination powers emerged.

Each document appears to build upon the appearance of authority created by the previous one. None, on its face, identifies presidential authorisation for the final institution that emerged.

Court case was about Room B53, not legal existence

Court papers seen by this newspaper show that Mr Nwabueze commenced an action at the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory in June 2026 after certain OSGF employees allegedly attempted to interfere with his occupation of Room B53.

He sought an interlocutory injunction restraining four officials from entering, interfering with or removing him from the office pending determination of the case.

The proceedings are significant, but not for the reason Mr Nwabueze may suggest.

The documents supplied contain a statement of claim and a motion filed by Mr Nwabueze. They do not contain a judgment or an order declaring that the Made-in-Nigeria office was lawfully established.

Filing a case records the claimant’s allegations. It does not mean that a court has accepted those allegations as true.

The relief was also narrowly concerned with possession of Room B53. Nwabueze did not, in the documents examined, seek a declaration against the President, the SGF or the Attorney-General that his project office had been lawfully created as a federal institution.

His 2024 letter merely offered the room for official liaison. It did not grant a lease, permanent ownership or an unconditional right to occupy government property.

The litigation nevertheless provides an important contemporaneous record. It indicates that OSGF officials were already attempting to dislodge Nwabueze months before the ICPC publicly announced its findings. It also records Nwabueze’s reliance on the 2024 and 2025 letters before the current controversy began.

Investigators can therefore obtain the certified court file and treat the pleadings as a detailed account of the authority Nwabueze claimed at the time.

Documents corroborate suspected insider assistance

President Bola Tinubu suspended three permanent secretaries after the ICPC briefing: M.S. Danjuma, Nadungu Gagare and Richard Pheelangwah.

The names of Gagare and Pheelangwah now appear directly within the documentary trail presented by Nwabueze himself.

That does not establish criminal liability on the part of either official. Their individual knowledge, authority, instructions and intentions must be proved.

But the documents provide clear investigative questions about how the office acquired government premises, public titles, official publicity and access to federal and state institutions.

The ICPC’s strongest position is therefore not that Nwabueze fabricated every connection with government. The stronger and more defensible case is that officials may have assisted in creating the appearance of governmental legitimacy for an office that still lacked the required superior authority.

An appointment letter cannot confer powers that its issuer did not possess. Neither can government accommodation transform a project into a federal institution.

Mandate grew beyond the letters

The disputed office’s published framework went considerably further than organising exhibitions and promoting Nigerian products.

It described national, regional and state structures; renewable tenure; funding from federal allocations, grants, donations and sponsorships; income from exhibitions and product registration; and remittances from state offices.

It also claimed responsibilities touching on investment promotion, PPP and BOOT transactions, SME development, national labelling, standards, counterfeit surveillance, industrial policy and procurement preference.

Those fields are already occupied by legally established institutions, including the Nigerian Investment Promotion Commission, Nigerian Export Promotion Council, Infrastructure Concession Regulatory Commission, Standards Organisation of Nigeria, NAFDAC, SMEDAN, Bureau of Public Procurement and the Federal Ministry of Industry, Trade and Investment.

None of the appointment letters so far released expressly authorises Nwabueze’s office to assume those statutory or regulatory responsibilities.

Investigators must therefore determine whether limited project correspondence was used to justify a much larger operation than government ever approved.

Official connection is not lawful creation

The documents could still assist Nwabueze in one important respect.

If authenticated, they may support an argument that he acted openly, relied on senior public officers and genuinely believed that the OSGF possessed authority to establish the project. That could become relevant to proving dishonest intent.

But the defence will depend on whether he remained within the precise terms of the instruments or knowingly expanded them into governmental powers they did not confer.

The decisive evidence will come from the original MOU, registry records, internal approvals, correspondence, bank accounts, state appointments, sponsorship agreements, collections and communications between Nwabueze and the officials involved.

For now, his documents establish that government officials dealt with him. They do not establish that the government lawfully created the office he subsequently represented.

Instead of closing the case, the papers may have revealed its central architecture: a private or promotional initiative that accumulated official letters, titles, premises and institutional access until it could present itself to the public as a federal office.

That is no longer simply a question of whether Nwabueze possessed government letterhead.

It is a question of who had the power to create the office, who knew that authority was missing, and how far the resulting appearance of government legitimacy was used to obtain access, money, appointments or influence.

Nwabueze denies operating a fake agency. The OSGF has not publicly authenticated the complete documentary chain or identified the presidential authority behind the office. The ICPC investigation remains ongoing, and none of the persons named has been convicted of any offence.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Nwabueze has publicly denied operating an unauthorised agency and has relied on OSGF correspondence, his appointment letters and court proceedings as evidence that the project had official backing. This report has substantially reflected that defence and examined the documents on their own terms. The documents have not been independently authenticated by the OSGF, and no court has determined that the project office was either lawfully established or fraudulent. The suspension of the permanent secretaries is an interim administrative measure and does not establish wrongdoing. The ICPC investigation remains ongoing, and all persons named retain the presumption of innocence. This newspaper will fairly incorporate any subsequent clarification or response from the affected parties.