By Steve Azaiki

The public controversy surrounding the alleged Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council (PFIPC) has generated significant debate within Nigeria’s political discourse, combining allegations of executive extortion with the administrative realities of federal governance. At the center of this controversy stands the Chief of Staff to the President, Femi Gbajabiamila, who was publicly accused by a self-proclaimed Director-General, Prince Adeniyi Adeyemi Matthew, of demanding a 48 per cent kickback from an alleged N27.395 billion take-off grant, alongside soliciting N600 million to facilitate presidential approvals.

An analysis of the underlying facts demonstrates that these claims crumble when evaluated against the objective mechanics of statecraft, fiscal regulations, and administrative law. The legislative inquest being conducted by the House of Representatives Ad-hoc Committee, chaired by Representative Yusuf Gagdi, established a public forum to evaluate these claims through sworn testimony.

The official accounts delivered by the leadership of Nigeria’s principal administrative and financial institutions including the Budget Office of the Federation, the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), the Office of the Accountant-General of the Federation (OAGF), the Office of the Head of the Civil Service of the Federation, and the Federal Ministry of Foreign Affairs provide crucial testimonies.

Far from implicating the Chief of Staff, these official accounts demonstrate that the PFIPC was a fictitious entity operating without executive authorisation, that no public funds were ever disbursed, and that the Chief of Staff acted to expose the fraud rather than profit from it. Evaluating these testimonies, tentative as they may be, reveals how an institutional impersonation scheme was weaponised as a political smear campaign.

The investigative hearings conducted by the House Ad-hoc Committee provided significant insight into the administrative safeguards of the Nigerian federal bureaucracy. The committee summoned key public officials to investigate how an unauthorised council obtained a code within the national budget and whether state resources were compromised. The Director-General of the Budget Office of the Federation, Tanimu Yakubu, testified regarding the inclusion of code 0111062001 in the 2026 Appropriation Act, which reflected a combined allocation of N1.303 billion under the composite header “Presidential Economic Advisory Council/Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council”. Yakubu confirmed under oath that despite its appearance in budget details, the statutory and legal requirements necessary to access or spend these funds were never fulfilled. He stated that not one kobo of the personnel, overhead, or capital allocations matured into a lawful cash release or procurement expenditure, concluding that no personnel expenditure existed to be recovered because no money was drawn.

This position was corroborated by the Central Bank of Nigeria. Abdullahi Hamisu, Director of Banking Services at the CBN, testified that while two bank accounts were opened following routine administrative requests from the Accountant-General’s office, both accounts remained unactivated. Hamisu confirmed that no authorised signatories were ever designated, no foreign exchange allocations were granted, no remittances occurred, and zero monetary transactions were processed through the Central Bank.

The Accountant-General of the Federation, Shamseldeen Ogunjimi, testified that his office explicitly rejected the PFIPC’s application to open a Treasury Single Account (TSA) self-accounting structure, after internal due diligence raised immediate flags. Similarly, the Office of the Head of the Civil Service of the Federation clarified that the entity operated without legitimate institutional standing, testifying categorically that no office space within Federal Secretariat Phase Three had ever been allocated to the council.

Finally, the Federal Ministry of Foreign Affairs, through Permanent Secretary Ambassador Dunoma Ahmed, confirmed that it consistently rejected repeated requests from Adeyemi for diplomatic recognition and visa support following due diligence checks.

The cumulative weight of these testimonies establishes a crucial administrative fact: federal fiscal safeguards successfully prevented any financial outlay. Because no N27.395 billion take-off grant existed or was ever approved by the Federal Executive Council, and because not a single Naira of the N1.3 billion budget allocation was released, the assertion that Gbajabiamila demanded a 48 percent bribe or received N400 million through a proxy is contradicted by the fiscal record.

The validity of corruption allegations depends heavily on the consistency of the accuser’s claims and supporting evidence. In the PFIPC affair, the accuser’s narrative unravels under critical examination.

During an interview with social media commentator Martins Vincent Otse (VeryDarkMan), Prince Adeniyi Adeyemi Matthew made several concessions that undermined his previous statements regarding the Chief of Staff. Adeyemi acknowledged that he had never met Femi Gbajabiamila in person, had never conducted a video call with him, and possessed no direct line of communication with the Chief of Staff. Instead, Adeyemi stated that his communications were conducted through an intermediary, the late Babatunde Tanimola. Adeyemi admitted he had no independent means to verify whether Tanimola was acting on Gbajabiamila’s instructions or simply utilising the Chief of Staff’s name, a pattern consistent with political impersonation scams.

Official statements further clarify Adeyemi’s background. Presidential spokesperson Bayo Onanuga disclosed that Adeyemi had a history of questionable misrepresentation, referencing a November 2016 incident where he presented himself as an ambassador and President-General of the “World Youth Organisation”—a body he claimed was affiliated with the United Nations until the UN issued a public denial. Law enforcement agencies investigating the PFIPC matter uncovered 34 bank accounts linked to Adeyemi, including nine opened under fictitious government entities, alongside forged presidential appointment letters.

The documented sequence of events shows that Chief of Staff Gbajabiamila intervened to report the fraudulent activity prior to the public controversy: In October 2025, several months before public media reports emerged, Gbajabiamila petitioned the Department of State Services (DSS) and the Nigeria Police Force to investigate syndicates forging official letters and signatures from his office.

Following continued unauthorised activities, Gbajabiamila issued formal disclaimers in national newspapers between June 8 and June 11, 2026, warning public institutions, foreign missions, and citizens that the PFIPC was fictitious and that Adeyemi held no valid appointment.

By July 2, 2026, the Presidency confirmed that criminal charges were filed against Adeyemi for forgery, impersonation, and fraudulent visa solicitation. To seek legal redress, Gbajabiamila instituted a N15 billion defamation suit in the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory on July 15, 2026, through a legal team of Senior Advocates of Nigeria, committing to donate all general damages to charity. Later in July 2026, following President Bola Tinubu’s directive for a 30-day investigation by the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC), Gbajabiamila appeared before the commission to present statements on oath.

This chronological sequence demonstrates that the Chief of Staff took active measures to expose the dubious entity. These actions align with an official seeking to safeguard institutional integrity against advance-fee and impersonation networks.

Understanding why the Chief of Staff became the focal point of this controversy requires examining the structural role of the office within a presidential system.

The Chief of Staff functions as the manager of executive scheduling, and primary gatekeeper regarding information flow to the President. In a system where presidential access carries political weight, the gatekeeper routinely manages competing demands from political interest groups, legislative figures, and private lobbyists.

Targeting the Chief of Staff is an established political strategy, often serving as an indirect challenge to the presidential administration. By launching unverified corruption charges against key administrative officials, political adversaries seek to generate public doubt, disrupt policy implementation, and create internal friction. With political positioning ahead of the 2027 general elections already underway, public allegations are frequently used to challenge administrative coherence.

The PFIPC case also draws attention to systemic vulnerabilities within administrative and budgetary processes. The inclusion of code 0111062001 in the 2026 Appropriation Act illustrates how unauthorised entities can exploit procedural gaps to insert line items into large budget documentation. However, the institutional response demonstrates the effectiveness of secondary fiscal controls. While an unauthorised budget entry occurred, financial control mechanisms including the Budget Office’s refusal to issue warrants, the OAGF’s rejection of TSA status, and the CBN’s refusal to activate unverified accounts prevented any loss of public funds.

The public official testimonies before the House Ad-hoc Committee clarify the distinction between administrative irregularities and criminal complicity. The system identified an attempted breach, and internal institutional controls successfully contained it. Attributing this administrative anomaly to a Chief of Staff who formally flagged the fraud months prior is contradicted by the documented evidence. These administrative records, as disclosed during the House Ad Hoc Committee hearings, combined with the accuser’s concessions and the Chief of Staff’s stern rebuttal, establish the non-complicity of Hon. Femi Gbajabiamila. Gbajabiamila’s career in public service spanning six terms in the House of Representatives, service as Minority Leader, Majority Leader, Speaker of the 9th Assembly, and Chief of Staff reflects a long-standing engagement with legislative and executive governance.

As judicial and ICPC investigations reach their final conclusions, the legislative record remains unambiguous. The PFIPC affair demonstrates the strength of Nigeria’s fiscal verification controls when challenged by external fraud, while illustrating how administrative anomalies can be leveraged for political campaigns. Grounding public analysis in verified testimonies confirms that the Chief of Staff was not a participant in this scheme, but rather an official who moved to expose an administrative impersonation campaign.

Prof. Azaiki is a former Secretary to the Bayelsa State Government and was a member of the House of Representatives from 2019 – 2023.