By Godswill Michael
The management of the controversial Made in Nigeria Special Project has invoked a pending court case to defend its continued operation, insisting that an order of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, protects the project’s status pending the determination of the suit.
The project, promoted by Prince George Buchi Nwabueze, came under scrutiny after the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) disclosed that President Bola Tinubu had ordered Nwabueze’s arrest over the alleged operation of a fictitious government office.
The ICPC also announced the suspension of three permanent secretaries — M.S. Danjuma, Nadungu Gagare and Richard P. Pheelangwah — following the discovery of the office, which the commission said had been allocated space within the premises of the Office of the Secretary to the Government of the Federation (OSGF) without presidential authorisation.
The controversy deepened after checks showed that the organisation had presented itself online as a national project operating under the OSGF, with Nwabueze identified as its “Executive Director, National Coordinator.”
Its website also listed a nationwide structure comprising zonal directors, 20 state coordinators and representatives in the United States and China.
The platform described the organisation as an initiative of the OSGF established to promote Nigerian products, support small and medium-sized enterprises, organise trade exhibitions and advance industrial development.
The ICPC, however, has challenged the organisation’s claimed government status, identifying it as one of the purported fictitious government bodies under investigation.
However, in a statement issued on Monday through its Directorate of Legal Affairs and Strategic Communications, the project’s management rejected the allegation, insisting that it had never claimed to be a statutory government agency.
“The Made in Nigeria Project has never operated as, nor claimed to be, a statutory civil service agency. Rather, it is an approved Public-Private Project Initiative anchored on the presidential mandates of Executive Order 003 (2017) and Executive Order 005 (2018),” the statement said.
According to the management, the project was established to promote domestic manufacturing, empower producers across the country and drive non-oil exports.
It further claimed that its institutional relationship with the OSGF was supported by official correspondence, citing a memorandum with reference number PS-PEAO/2025/008/4 issued under the Political and Economic Affairs Office of the OSGF.
The memorandum, according to the management, approved a five-member Technical Committee to oversee the project’s development objectives, monitoring frameworks and public-private implementation structures.
“The institutional standing of the Special Project, according to the management, is established through official supervisory correspondence with Reference Number PS-PEAO/2025/008/4 under the Political and Economic Affairs Office (PEAO) of the OSGF,” the statement said.
The management also alleged that its dispute with some officials within the OSGF arose from attempts to remove the project from its office and suppress official documents relating to its activities.
It said it petitioned the Secretary to the Government of the Federation on May 15, 2026, over the alleged withholding and suppression of strategic project files.
Among the documents cited was file number PS/PEAO/2025/008/66, which the management said concerned Nigeria’s advance delegation to the Asia-Africa Summit 2026 and sub-national energy programmes.
The project described the alleged administrative actions as an attempt to frustrate its nationwide industrial initiatives.
According to the statement, Nwabueze subsequently approached the FCT High Court after what the management described as threats of administrative eviction and suppression of official records without due process.
“In response to what it described as unlawful threats of administrative eviction and file suppression without due administrative process, Prince George Buchi Nwabueze sought judicial protection by instituting Suit No. CV/2634/26 before the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja,” it said.
The management said the writ of summons in the case was issued on June 10, 2026, adding that the court directed the parties to maintain the status quo pending the determination of the substantive suit.
“The management stated that the matter remains sub judice before a court of competent jurisdiction,” the statement added.
The invocation of the court process comes amid continuing questions over how the organisation allegedly established an extensive network of officials and operated under the name of the Federal Government despite the ICPC’s position that it lacked presidential authorisation.
The project’s website had identified Nwabueze as its national coordinator and listed officials across the South-West, North and South-East, as well as state coordinators in 20 states. Representatives were also listed in the United States and China.
The website further stated that the project was conceived in 2006, formalised in 2017 and subsequently institutionalised under the OSGF. It described the initiative as a strategic programme focused on local production, SME development, industrialisation and economic diversification.
The controversy has also raised questions about individuals listed on the project’s platform, some of whom have reportedly held public positions or maintained political, governmental or community links in their respective states. Their inclusion on the platform, however, does not by itself establish knowledge of, or involvement in, any alleged lack of government authorisation.
The management accused unnamed serving and retired OSGF officials of “persistent administrative sabotage,” saying it was prepared to submit documentary evidence to the appropriate authorities.
It also said Nwabueze had “absolute respect” for President Tinubu, the OSGF and the ICPC, adding that his legal team would present “complete certified documentary evidence of all approvals, memoranda and court processes” to clarify the dispute.
The management urged the media, trade partners and members of the public to disregard what it described as “sensationalised and malicious reports” aimed at criminalising what it maintains is a legitimate public-private initiative.