What began as a routine disclaimer from the Office of the Chief of Staff to the President has snowballed into one of the most controversial governance scandals of the Tinubu administration, exposing apparent contradictions between official government records, the national budget, and the Presidency’s public position.
At the centre of the controversy are Chief of Staff Femi Gbajabiamila and businessman Prince Adeniyi Adeyemi, who claims to have served as Director-General of the Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council (PFIPC)—an agency the Chief of Staff insists does not exist.
The controversy has now raised disturbing questions about Nigeria’s budgeting process, government documentation, institutional accountability and possible abuse of public office.
The Timeline
According to available records, Prince Adeniyi operated publicly as Director-General of the PFIPC for more than one year.
During that period, he held meetings with several government institutions, including:
Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC)
Nigerian Electricity Regulatory Commission (NERC)
Raw Materials Research and Development Council (RMRDC)
China’s Investment Business Development Commission (CIBDC)
Photographs and official announcements from some of these engagements remain publicly available.
No public disclaimer was issued during those meetings.
The Presidential Denial
On June 11, 2026, Gbajabiamila released an official statement declaring that:
the PFIPC does not exist;
no appointment was made for Prince Adeniyi;
diplomatic missions and international organisations should disregard him.
That statement immediately created one central question:
How could a non-existent agency allegedly operate openly for over a year without detection?
The Budget Contradiction
Perhaps the most explosive revelation is that the disputed council reportedly appears in Nigeria’s 2026 Appropriation Act.
According to the published budget:
Total allocation: ₦1,302,978,784
Recurrent expenditure:
₦1,002,978,784
Capital expenditure:
₦300 million
Budget items reportedly include:
salaries;
staff allowances;
World Investment Summit preparations;
logistics;
investment negotiations;
leadership programmes.
If authentic, the budget entry raises fundamental questions.
Either:
the council legally exists;
or
government approved over ₦1.3 billion for an agency that officially does not exist.
Both possibilities point to a serious institutional failure requiring independent investigation.
The Bribery Allegations
Prince Adeniyi has levelled grave allegations against Gbajabiamila, including claims that:
₦400 million was allegedly paid through proxies to facilitate his appointment;
an additional ₦200 million balance remained outstanding;
he was pressured to surrender 48% of an alleged ₦27.4 billion take-off grant;
his refusal allegedly triggered the current dispute.
These allegations have not been proven in court, and Gbajabiamila has denied the legitimacy of the agency. No public evidence has yet been presented by investigators establishing the truth of the bribery claims.
The Governance Questions
The controversy extends beyond the dispute between two individuals.
Investigators are asking:
Who proposed the agency?
Who prepared its budget?
Which ministry supervised it?
Which National Assembly committees scrutinised its allocation?
Was any personnel employed?
Was any public money released?
Were government offices officially assigned?
Was a Treasury Single Account actually opened?
If yes, who authorised it?
Who approved official correspondence bearing the council’s name?
These questions remain unanswered.
National Assembly Under Scrutiny
Sources familiar with the budget process argue that every federal agency ordinarily appears before relevant committees before funds are appropriated.
If that process was followed, investigators would seek answers from:
committee chairmen;
Appropriations Committees;
Budget Office officials;
the Office of the Accountant-General;
the Office of the Secretary to the Government of the Federation.
Presidency Yet to Give Detailed Response
As of publication:
the Presidency has not publicly explained how the council allegedly appeared in the federal budget if it does not exist;
the Budget Office has reportedly maintained that agencies contained in the budget are recognised government entities;
neither chamber of the National Assembly has publicly clarified how the disputed allocation was approved.
Political Reactions
Former Vice President Atiku Abubakar has called for:
the suspension of Gbajabiamila pending investigation;
an independent investigative panel;
full public disclosure of the findings.
Conversely, several civil society and political groups have defended the Chief of Staff, arguing that the allegations remain unproven and warning against trial by media.
What an Independent Investigation Should Establish
An impartial inquiry should determine:
Whether the PFIPC was legally created.
Whether any presidential approval exists.
Whether public funds were released.
Whether government accounts were opened.
Whether appointments were lawfully issued.
Whether official documents were forged or improperly used.
Whether any public officials abused their offices.
Whether criminal offences were committed by any party.
The Bottom Line
This controversy has evolved into far more than a disagreement between Prince Adeniyi Adeyemi and Femi Gbajabiamila. It has become a test of Nigeria’s public finance system, institutional integrity, and executive accountability.
If the council truly did not exist, investigators must explain how it allegedly secured budgetary allocations, engaged government agencies, and operated publicly without intervention.
If, however, the council did exist in some official capacity, then the Presidency owes Nigerians a clear explanation for the contradictory public statements surrounding its status.
Until these questions are answered through an independent, transparent investigation, the scandal will continue to cast a shadow over public confidence in government institutions.
