NIGERIA :A bribery allegation involving the Office of the Chief of Staff to President Bola Tinubu has raised uncomfortable questions about how far a government can go in publicly clearing one of its own appointees without independent scrutiny.
Prince Adeniyi Adeyemi, who describes himself as the Director-General of the Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council (PFIPC), has alleged that Chief of Staff Femi Gbajabiamila received ₦400 million through an intermediary, with a further ₦200 million allegedly outstanding. He also claims that Gbajabiamila demanded 48 per cent of a proposed ₦27.4 billion take-off grant intended for the council .
The Presidency has categorically denied the allegations, insisting that the PFIPC does not exist, that Adeyemi was never appointed to any government office, and that he is an alleged fraudster currently standing trial before the Federal High Court in Abuja on an eight-count charge relating to forgery .
These competing narratives sit uneasily alongside one another.
The PFIPC appeared in the 2026 Appropriation Act with an allocation of ₦1.3 billion, prompting questions about how an entity now described as fictitious found its way into the national budget . According to the budget document, the allocation under code 0111062001 comprised ₦802,978,784 for personnel costs, ₦200 million for overheads, and ₦300 million for capital expenditure . This is a matter of public record and demands explanation.
It is also a matter of public record that the Office of the Chief of Staff formally petitioned the Nigeria Police Force and the Department of State Services (DSS) in October last year concerning the same Adeyemi whom it now says had no official standing . Rather than allowing the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) or the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC)—the agencies constitutionally mandated to investigate corruption allegations—to establish the facts, the Presidency has so far relied primarily on statements issued by its own spokesman.
Another apparent contradiction also warrants clarification. By Adeyemi’s account, the council operated from an office on the second floor of the Federal Secretariat Complex, Phase III, Abuja—a government building where office accommodation is ordinarily allocated through official processes rather than to private individuals on request .
If Adeyemi was indeed unknown to government, who authorised the allocation of that office, and under what documentation? A person cannot simultaneously be portrayed as having no official connection with government while reportedly operating from designated office space within a federal secretariat without explanation. Police investigations reportedly established that Adeyemi was arrested on October 27, 2025, at the very office where he allegedly operated as Director-General of the purported council .
Senior lawyer Femi Falana (SAN) has publicly argued that the Presidency lacks the constitutional authority to exonerate anyone accused of corruption, maintaining that such matters should be investigated by the police and the relevant anti-corruption agencies . Falana has also agreed to lead Adeyemi’s legal defence .
Falana has questioned how an agency not created by law found its way into the Appropriation Act, operated from the Federal Secretariat, opened accounts with the Central Bank of Nigeria, and had civil servants deployed to it—despite lacking any known legal foundation . “If this is a conman that can con the Presidency into issuing a letter of appointment, con the Central Bank into opening accounts, con the National Assembly into inserting the agency into the budget, I think the government is kidding,” Falana said .
This is not the first time questions have been raised about access to the Presidency. Months before Adeyemi’s allegations emerged, Senator Ali Ndume, the former Senate Chief Whip, stated during an interview on Arise News that certain presidential aides allegedly asked visitors how much they were willing to pay before arranging meetings with President Tinubu.
Nor is this the first occasion on which Gbajabiamila’s name has featured in online speculation. Commentary circulating again this week refers to claims made in May 2024 concerning Major General Barry Ndiomu (Rtd.), who briefly served as Interim Administrator of the Presidential Amnesty Programme before being succeeded by Dennis Otuaro. Those claims remain unsubstantiated.
Further questions surround Dolapo Babatunde Tanimola, whom Adeyemi identifies as the intermediary in the alleged transaction. Tanimola reportedly died in a hotel fire in Abuja last October . Adeyemi has also claimed that he survived an attack along the Abuja–Kaduna Expressway during roughly the same period.
BudgIT, the civic technology organisation, has called for an independent investigation into the controversial allocation, warning that the incident exposes deep flaws in Nigeria’s budgeting process . The NDC has also demanded that President Tinubu suspend Gbajabiamila to allow for an impartial investigation .
Ultimately, this controversy calls not for louder accusations from either side but for a calm, impartial, and independent investigation conducted by agencies legally empowered to establish the facts, free from influence by the Presidency, the accuser, or any other interested party. Until such a process has run its course, every individual involved is entitled to the presumption of innocence, while the Nigerian public is entitled to transparency, accountability, and due process rather than competing narratives and premature conclusions.
