Gbajabiamila Under Pressure: The Fictitious Agency Scandal Exposes Gaps in Presidential Oversight and Anti-Corruption Machinery
The Report
As reported by TheCitizen, the Presidency has come under renewed scrutiny following the prosecution of Prince Adeniyi Adeyemi, who faces eight counts of conspiracy, forgery, and impersonation at the Federal High Court in Abuja. Adeyemi is accused of operating a fictitious government agency, the Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council, forging a presidential appointment letter bearing the purported signature of Chief of Staff Femi Gbajabiamila, and maintaining 34 bank accounts in the names of non-existent government bodies.
The Presidency, through a statement by Special Adviser Bayo Onanuga, detailed the police investigation, noting that Adeyemi was arrested on October 27, 2025, after Gbajabiamila formally petitioned security agencies. The police filed an eight-count charge on November 27, 2025. The Presidency warned politicians against weaponising the matter against the Chief of Staff.
“Politicians and members of the public who are weaponising Adeyemi’s claim against the Chief of Staff should refrain from swallowing his narrative hook, line and sinker. They are advised to await the trial of Adeyemi and his accomplices, as well as the court’s judgement.”
Human rights lawyer Femi Falana countered that the Presidency lacks constitutional authority to exonerate anyone and called for an independent probe of both Gbajabiamila and Adeyemi. Adeyemi, in a press conference, accused Gbajabiamila of demanding a 48% cut of a N27.4bn take-off grant and receiving N400m through a proxy, allegations the Chief of Staff denies.
Nigeria Time News Analysis
From a governance and anti-corruption perspective, this scandal strikes at the heart of institutional credibility in Nigeria. The fact that an individual could allegedly forge presidential letterheads, open accounts at the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), and host foreign ambassadors at a hotel without triggering immediate red flags points to systemic weaknesses in inter-agency coordination. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs raised concerns only after Adeyemi hosted diplomats, and the Nigerian Investment Promotion Commission (NIPC) flagged the existence of a parallel body—but these alerts came after the damage to Nigeria’s international reputation had already occurred.
The involvement of the Chief of Staff’s office, even as a victim of forgery, raises uncomfortable questions about internal controls. If a forged appointment letter bearing Gbajabiamila’s signature could be used to secure office space at the Federal Secretariat and open bank accounts, what other documents might be circulating? For the Tinubu administration, which has staked its legitimacy on economic reform and anti-corruption messaging, this episode undermines the narrative of a tightly managed presidency.
Falana’s call for an independent probe is significant. Under Nigerian law, the executive cannot investigate itself in a manner that satisfies public accountability standards. The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) or the Independent Corrupt Practices Commission (ICPC) must be allowed to examine whether any official—including the Chief of Staff—had prior knowledge or involvement. The allegation that N24bn was budgeted for a fictitious agency, if true, would represent a catastrophic failure in the budget approval process, implicating both the executive and the National Assembly.
For the Nigerian diaspora, this story reinforces concerns about governance transparency. Diaspora investors and professionals often cite institutional opacity as a barrier to engagement. A scandal involving forged presidential documents and phantom agencies does little to inspire confidence in the rule of law or the security of business transactions.
Regional Context
West Africa has seen a pattern of fraudulent government agencies and phantom appointments, particularly in countries with weak public financial management systems. In Ghana, similar scandals involving fake government contracts have damaged investor trust. For ECOWAS, Nigeria’s ability to prosecute this case transparently will be watched closely. A failure to hold all parties accountable could embolden similar schemes across the region, where cross-border fraud often exploits gaps in diplomatic protocols and financial oversight.
Original Reporting By:
TheCitizen