Gbajabiamila: The Devil is in the Details

Allegations of fraud and impersonation hovering over the non-existent Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council are not difficult to see through only if everyone follows the evidence, and not the noise, writes Olawale Olaleye.

One of the greatest ironies of the Adeniyi Mattew Adeyemi saga is that the man being accused by all and sundry may well be the very official, who initiated the process that exposed the alleged fraud. That irony deserves some reflections.

If available records were correct, complaints were received from the Nigeria Investment Promotion Commission regarding suspicious activities linked to the so-called Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council (PFIPC).

The matter was reportedly escalated to the Chief of Staff, Hon. Femi Gbajabiamila, who subsequently referred it to security agencies for investigation.

That referral led to an investigation. That investigation led to an arrest. That arrest led to criminal charges. That prosecution remains before the courts.

Those are not the actions of a man trying to protect a fraudulent enterprise. Those are the actions of someone attempting to uncover one.

The fundamental question therefore becomes: If Gbajabiamila was allegedly involved, why would he be the one initiating security scrutiny that eventually led to the arrest of the principal suspect?

No convincing answer has yet been provided by his critics. But the bigger scandal is the institutional failure. The real scandal may not be Gbajabiamila at all. The real scandal is how a purported organisation managed to acquire layers of apparent government legitimacy before eventually attracting scrutiny. The questions are numerous and uncomfortable.

How did an entity allegedly lacking legal foundation obtain office accommodation?

How did personnel-related approvals allegedly emerge from government structures? How did treasury postings reportedly find their way into documents connected to the organisation?

How did the organisation gain sufficient credibility to convince stakeholders, investors and public officials? How did it remain operational long enough to become known publicly?

These questions point to something larger than one individual. They point to systemic weaknesses. A fraud of this magnitude, if proven in court, would not represent the failure of a single office.

It would represent the failure of multiple gatekeepers. The focus therefore should not be on manufacturing a villain for political convenience. The focus should be on understanding how so many institutional safeguards appeared to have failed simultaneously.

Situating the NITDA Question

Perhaps the most troubling aspect of the matter concerns the alleged acquisition of a government domain. The images appear to reference a .gov.ng domain associated with the organisation. If independently verified, this raises profound questions.

A .gov.ng domain is not the same thing as purchasing a commercial website. Government domains are generally expected to undergo scrutiny because they carry official credibility.

The ordinary citizen assumes that a website ending in .gov.ng belongs to a legitimate government institution.

That assumption is reasonable, which is why the obvious question remains: How did the domain come into existence? Who processed the request? What documentation was supplied? What verification procedures were undertaken? Who approved them? What due diligence was conducted?

The issue is not whether NITDA intentionally facilitated wrongdoing. The issue is whether established verification procedures functioned effectively. A serious government should be interested in those answers.

The Forgotten Buhari-Era Connection

One of the more revealing discoveries emerging from independent research concerns the name itself. Many Nigerians have assumed that the nomenclature associated with the organisation was entirely fabricated.

The reality appears more complicated. The Presidential Economic Advisory Council was a genuine Buhari-era structure. It was publicly announced. It had recognised members. It had a chairman. It had official recognition.

When President Bola Tinubu later established the Presidential Economic Coordination Council, the nomenclature changed.

However, questions remained about whether older structures were formally wound down in a manner that eliminated opportunities for confusion or exploitation.

If an individual sought to create an illusion of legitimacy, the existence of a dormant but previously recognised governmental structure could potentially become a useful tool. That possibility deserves investigation. It is a governance question. Not a partisan one.

Why the Portraits Matter

The photographs showing portraits on the office wall may appear insignificant at first glance. They are not. Symbols create legitimacy. Images create authority. Institutional branding creates confidence.

When visitors encounter portraits of recognised public figures alongside those of current occupants, a psychological message is communicated. The message is simple: “This institution has continuity.” “This institution has history.” “This institution is recognised.”

Whether that impression was intentionally cultivated or not is ultimately a matter for investigators. But the significance of such imagery should not be underestimated. Perception is often the first building block of credibility. And credibility is often the first tool of deception.

Curious Evolution of N400m Bribe

Perhaps the most problematic aspect of the public accusations against Gbajabiamila is the shifting nature of the claims. The burden of proof always rests on the accuser.

Extraordinary allegations require extraordinary evidence. If money exchanged hands, evidence should exist. If intermediaries were involved, evidence should exist. If transactions occurred, evidence should exist.

When stories begin to change, when key witnesses become unavailable, when explanations evolve after public scrutiny, scepticism becomes inevitable. That is not a defence of any individual. It is simply a defence of due process.

No one should be convicted in the media. No one should be exonerated in the media either. The courtroom exists precisely for that purpose.

But it is left to be seen let alone proven, how Adeyemi had a trascation with a man he never met. His closest link to Gbajabiamila was through a middleman, who unfiortunately is no more.

Yet, the same Adeyemi had photographs with practically everyone who is who in the country except of course with Gbajabiamila, the only man he has accused of accomplice in his fradulent ventuture. Interestingly!

The Political Opportunists

A troubling feature of modern politics is the tendency to weaponise allegations before facts are established. Some opposition figures appear to have already reached conclusions. Some activists appear to have already selected villains.

Some commentators appear more interested in political damage than factual accuracy. That is dangerous. If tomorrow evidence emerges against Gbajabiamila, then the law should take its course.

If tomorrow evidence exonerates him completely, the same people demanding his head today should be prepared to apologise. The standard must be consistency. Not convenience.

Follow the Evidence, Not the Noise

The Adeniyi Adeyemi affair should be investigated thoroughly and fearlessly. Every official who approved documents should answer questions. Every agency connected to the matter should explain its actions.

Every procedural failure should be identified. Every institutional weakness should be corrected. But one conclusion already appears difficult to escape.

For example, it would be nice to hear from the Director General, Budget Office of the Federation, Babangida Hussaini. His office assigns budget codes and processes MDA submissions.

Code 0111062001 passed through his office. He needs to produce the submission trail for that entry and explain at what stage it entered the process.

In the same vein, Minister of State for Labour and Employment, Simon Lalong and the Head of Civil Service of the Federation at the time, Folasade Yemi-Esan, when 314 staff were approved for a non-existent agency, must tell the publiv whoever signed off on that approval.

The officer in question needs to explain what documentation was reviewed and who submitted the request.

This investigation cannot excuse the Accountant General of the Federation, Oluwatoyin Madein. Her office processed the alleged CBN account opening for a fictitious agency. Although that is being denied among other things now, her office is the one the Presidency’s statement says was “misled.”

She needs to explain specifically how a mandatory verification chain requiring sign-off from the SGF, Chief of Staff, and Minister of Finance was bypassed or completed.

The current Governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria, Yemi Cardoso, has questions to answer. The CBN holds the account. Its internal control unit is independently required to verify government agency accounts.

Either it was verified, and someone it contacted confirmed the agency was legitimate, or it was not verified. Cardoso needs to answer which one happened.

The Senate Committee on Appropriations and its counterpasrt in the House of Representatives, reviewed the 2026 budget line by line. The combined PEAC/PFIPC entry with N182.5 million in World Investment Summit logistics passed through both committees.

One of those committees either inserted it or passed it without flagging it. Both chambers need to identify who tabled or approved that specific line.

Pivotal in the whole mess is the Secretary to the Government of the Federation, Senator George Akume. The SGF’s office is the custodian of the official register of legitimate MDAs.

Every time a government office, a bank, or a budget committee has to verify whether the PFIPC was real, the trail should have led back to this all-important office.

His office is also one of those required to sign off in the CBN verification chain. His office received a query from the Foreign Affairs Ministry in October 2025. What was done with that query before Adeyemi continued to operate?

The ambassador in the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Anderson Madubuike, under Yusuf Tuggar, wrote to flag Adeyemi’s ambassador meeting on October 15, 2025.

The ministry also received a request for a note verbale to facilitate US visas for PFIPC staff. At what point was that visa request rejected? Who rejected it and why did the ambassador meeting happen without the ministry’s knowledge in the first place?

For Gbajabiamila, the available narrative suggests that he was the official, who triggered the security response that ultimately exposed the alleged scheme.

Although the Presidency has exonerated Gbajabiamila and that statement is not wrong about him disowning the agency. He did, and early. But Adeyemi’s specific financial counter-allegation of N400 million paid by proxy deserves a formal documented rebuttal, not just a press statement. A denial supported by financial records may close this, ultimately. But a mere denial alone cannot.

That, nonetheless, history may eventually record Gbajabiamila not as the architect of the scandal but as the official, who helped to bring it to light. And if that turns out to be true, then the real story will not be the fall of Gbajabiamila.

It will be the exposure of a remarkable institutional breakdown that allowed an alleged fraudster to operate for far too long before the system finally woke up.