The controversy surrounding the alleged activities of the purported Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council (PFIPC) has continued to generate debate, with political analyst and public commentator Bayo Ayanga arguing that Chief of Staff to the President, Femi Gbajabiamila, should temporarily step aside pending the determination of the case by the court.
Ayanga made the remarks following comments by Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Femi Falana, who maintained that the Presidency lacked the constitutional authority to exonerate anyone in the matter and called for an independent investigation into both the Chief of Staff to the President, Femi Gbajabiamila, and Adeyemi.
The ongoing legal battle between Femi Gbajabiamila, the Chief of Staff to President Bola Tinubu, and a self-styled director-general, Adeniyi Adeyemi Matthew, has exposed a massive administrative fraud ring operating from the heart of Nigeria’s federal capital. The dispute erupted into public view after Adeyemi alleged that Gbajabiamila demanded a ₦400 million kickback, an additional ₦200 million payment, and a 48 per cent share of a proposed ₦27.4 billion take-off grant to secure his position.
However, the Nigerian Presidency swiftly dismissed these claims on July 1, 2026, explicitly declaring that the agency Adeyemi claimed to lead—the Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council (PFIPC)—is an entirely fictitious entity that does not exist within the federal government’s structure. Executive spokespersons emphasized that the Chief of Staff holds no constitutional power to issue letters of appointment, rendering Adeyemi’s claims baseline fabrications.
A deep-dive investigation initiated by security agencies following a petition by Gbajabiamila revealed that Adeyemi operated an elaborate, unauthorized shadow agency from an office within the Federal Secretariat in Abuja. Police findings state that Adeyemi systematically forged appointment letters, official stamps, and correspondences, went as far as falsifying Gbajabiamila’s signature, and even hosted unsuspecting foreign diplomats under false pretences. Financial investigators uncovered 34 bank accounts tied to the suspect, nine of which were linked to fake government entities, including a fraudulent account opened at the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) via deceptive letters sent to the Office of the Accountant-General.
While Adeyemi has gone into hiding and released underground statements claiming the prosecution is a politically motivated attempt to silence him, the Nigeria Police Force has filed an eight-count criminal charge FHC/ABJ/CR/2025 at the Federal High Court in Abuja, with the formal trial scheduled to begin on July 27, 2026.
In the meantime, human rights lawyer, Femi Falana, said the Presidency lacked the constitutional authority to exonerate anyone in the matter and called for an independent probe of both the Chief of Staff to the President, Femi Gbajabiamila and Adeyemi.
The senior advocate questioned the financial provisions linked to the purported agency, saying, “The government will have to explain to Nigerians how a whopping sum of N24bn was budgeted for an unknown agency, as well as how that agency had accounts with the Central Bank of Nigeria.”
He called for an explanation of how a fictitious body allegedly secured a CBN account and attracted a budget line.
However, almost aligning with the legal luminary on Thursday during an interview on Frontline, a current affairs programme on Eagle 102.5 FM, Ilese-Ijebu, Ogun State, Ayanga who doubles as Chairman, Ijebu North East Forum argued that although the Presidency has publicly cleared the Chief of Staff of any wrongdoing, only the courts possess the constitutional authority to determine criminal liability.
“Femi Gbajabiamila will have at least step down. Until this whole mess is cleared. Because the mess is not cleared yet”.
According to him, the Presidency’s decision to publicly exonerate Gbajabiamila before the conclusion of judicial proceedings raises concerns about due process and public confidence in government institutions.
“The Honorable thing was for Honorable Femi Gbajabiamila to step down. The fact that the presidency said it is cleared…is not cleared yet. Until we see the end of this case and the court says, oh, this man is guilty or you are not guilty. That’s the total clearance. I expect him to step down”, he said.
Responding to arguments that stepping aside could encourage politically motivated allegations, he maintained that his position was not a call for resignation.
“No, no. For him to step down pending him being cleared by the courts. I’m not saying he should resign.” he clarified.
Ayanga further argued that the Presidency’s statement absolving the Chief of Staff could not substitute for the judicial process, insisting that allegations of the nature raised against Gbajabiamila fall within the jurisdiction of the courts.
He maintained that only a competent court of law has the authority to determine criminal responsibility and clear or indict any individual facing such allegations.
“So, you can see all these, I don’t want to say statements from assault. That’s why I said he doesn’t have the power to clear the chief of staff. This is a criminal allegation that was made. It’s not civil. It’s criminal. So, if it’s a criminal allegation that was made, then let the court clear the case.”
He also questioned the speed with which the Presidency dismissed the allegations against Gbajabiamila, describing the development as premature.
“Two things. First, they don’t. The second is that the hastiness in which they cleared the man. This allegation was made some days ago, and then within a week we have cleared the man. How? How did they clear him? They are so swift about it,” he stated.
The political analyst further argued that the controversy had exposed deep institutional weaknesses within Nigeria’s governance architecture.
He said the alleged actions attributed to Adeyemi, if proven, could not have occurred without significant failures in administrative oversight, raising questions about the effectiveness of verification processes across government institutions.
“First there is a very great lacuna in the system of governance in Nigeria. And when I mean the system of governance, I’m not talking about the politicians, I’m also talking about the civil service structure. I want to assume that for someone to wake up one day, declare himself as the DG of a fictitious agency, secure office spaces in the federal secretariat…. How did that happen? Not only that, because you can say that is in the federal civil service structure that he got the space. How did he enter into the 2026 appropriation? How did he just present false documents to CBN and then CBN used that to open accounts? Who are the signatories to the account? Who sent money to the account? So, there are too many questions that beg answers”
Ayanga maintained that regardless of the outcome of the trial, the controversy should serve as a wake-up call for the Federal Government to strengthen institutional safeguards and improve administrative oversight across public institutions.
According to him, the case has exposed gaps in Nigeria’s governance and verification processes, stressing that comprehensive reforms are needed to ensure that appointments, government agencies and public records are subjected to more rigorous scrutiny to prevent similar incidents in the future.
“I don’t think this is wrong itself. Because at the end of the day, it should help foster better administration, better governance, come up with institutional reforms that will foster seamless and better way of checking out information, vesting information, vesting statements and all kinds of things. Maybe the man is an impostor. But it means that there are some things that could be done within this system that shouldn’t be done” he said.
Speaking further on the need for institutional reforms, Ayanga argued that the controversy highlighted systemic failures in Nigeria’s administrative processes. He said the alleged ease with which government procedures were circumvented pointed to lapses at multiple levels of oversight, stressing that established checks and verification mechanisms appeared to have failed.
“There are some things that, at the very first table, it should have been knocked out. But it left that first table approved, went to the second table, went to the third, went to the highest table, and it got approval. And sometimes, only at the highest table, the highest table will approve with the mindset that ordinarily, before this thing gets here, it should have been vetted by the lower tables. Meanwhile nobody did anything.”
While the case continues to generate mixed reactions across the country, it has raised fresh questions about public trust in government institutions and the effectiveness of internal oversight mechanisms. On one hand, the police investigation, prosecution, and formal charges against the suspect have been cited as evidence that law enforcement is willing to pursue allegations of high-level fraud through the judicial process. On the other hand, the allegations that an individual was able to operate under the name of a non-existent government body from the Federal Secretariat, host meetings involving foreign diplomats, seek official diplomatic documentation, and allegedly open multiple bank accounts before the matter came to light have intensified public concerns about weaknesses in administrative controls and verification systems.
The controversy has also drawn attention to broader questions about inter-agency coordination and institutional safeguards. Allegations surrounding the existence of budgetary provisions linked to the disputed council, as well as claims about the establishment of accounts associated with the entity, have prompted calls for greater transparency and independent investigation. These issues remain contested and are expected to be examined further during the ongoing legal proceedings.
Regardless of the eventual outcome of the trial, the case has highlighted the need for stronger verification processes, improved digital authentication of official documents, closer coordination among government agencies, and more rigorous scrutiny of public records and budgetary processes to reduce the risk of fraud and institutional impersonation.
