GBAJABIAMILA, ADEYEMI AND THE BILLION-NAIRA QUESTION NIGERIA DESERVES ANSWERS

_By Sam Agogo_

A bribery allegation trailing the Office of the Chief of Staff to President Bola Tinubu has raised uncomfortable questions about how far a government can go in clearing its own appointee without independent scrutiny.

Prince Adeniyi Adeyemi, who presents himself as Director-General of the Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council, alleges that Chief of Staff Femi Gbajabiamila received N400 million through a proxy, with a further N200 million outstanding, and separately demanded 48 per cent of a N27.4 billion take-off grant meant for the council. The presidency denies this entirely, insisting the council does not exist, that Adeyemi was never appointed to anything, and that he is a fraudster now standing trial on an eight-count forgery charge before the Federal High Court in Abuja.
The two positions sit uneasily side by side. The council appeared in the 2026 Appropriation Act with a N1.3 billion allocation, leaving many asking how an entity now called fictitious found its way into a national budget. It is also on record that the Office of the Chief of Staff formally petitioned the police and the DSS in October last year over the same Adeyemi it now says it barely recognises. Rather than let the ICPC or EFCC, the agencies constitutionally empowered to investigate such matters, establish the facts, the presidency has so far relied largely on statements from its own spokesman.
A further contradiction stands out. By its own account, Adeyemi’s council operated from an office on the second floor of the Federal Secretariat Complex, Phase III, Abuja, a building that does not hand out space to members of the public on request. If Adeyemi was truly a stranger to government, who authorised that office, and under what documentation? A man cannot simultaneously be unknown to the presidency and be found sitting inside a federal building with an office assigned in his name.
Senior lawyer Femi Falana has publicly argued that the presidency lacks the constitutional authority to clear anyone accused of corruption, insisting such determinations belong with the police and anti-graft agencies. Adding to the controversy, letters said to be from Senate and House of Representatives committees, requesting an oversight visit to the council, have been circulating on social media. Their authenticity remains unconfirmed, but the presidency’s haste to settle the public narrative before either chamber could speak has left room for scepticism rather than reassurance.
This is not the first time concerns have surfaced about access to the presidency. Months before Adeyemi’s allegations, Senator Ali Ndume, former Chief Whip of the Senate, told Arise News that certain aides within the presidency were known to ask visitors how much they were prepared to pay before a meeting with President Tinubu could be arranged. Ndume, removed from the Chief Whip role in 2024 over disagreements with the party leadership, described a system in which even senior lawmakers struggled for direct audiences with the President.
Nor is this the first time Gbajabiamila’s name has drifted into such conversations online. Commentary resurfacing this week points back to claims from May 2024 involving Major General Barry Ndiomu (retd.), briefly Interim Administrator of the Presidential Amnesty Programme before his replacement by Dennis Otuaro. The claims, attributed to an online commentary page and never tested in court, suggested a financial arrangement tied to his tenure. Nothing about this has been established as fact, and both men have largely stayed silent on it. It is raised here only as one of several threads Nigerians online are weaving together as they try to make sense of the present controversy, and why an independent inquiry now would serve everyone’s interest, including the presidency’s own.
It is worth noting who has stepped forward to defend Adeyemi. Femi Falana, a Yoruba elder statesman of the Bar, has agreed to lead his legal defence, notable given that Gbajabiamila is also Yoruba and a senior figure within the same political establishment. Falana has questioned how the council secured a budgetary line and CBN-domiciled accounts if it was never a legitimate government body.
There are also troubling, unresolved circumstances around Dolapo Babatunde Tanimola, the man Adeyemi says served as intermediary in the alleged transaction. Tanimola reportedly died in a hotel fire in Abuja last October. Adeyemi separately claims he survived an attack along the Abuja-Kaduna Expressway around the same period. These remain unverified allegations, but their seriousness warrants proper investigation rather than dismissal, and if Adeyemi’s safety is genuinely at risk, the appropriate agencies ought to extend him protection while the matter is probed.
Fairness, however, cuts both ways. On his own account, Adeyemi paid N400 million by proxy and was prepared to pay N200 million more. Nigerian law, under the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act, criminalises both giving and receiving a bribe. Coming forward as a whistleblower after allegedly participating in the transaction does not erase his own exposure under the law; it only earns him a hearing. Any credible investigation should examine not just what Gbajabiamila allegedly received, but how Adeyemi funded what he claims to have paid.
What this controversy calls for is not louder condemnation from either side but a calm, independent investigation by agencies with the legal mandate to conduct one, insulated from pressure from the presidency, the accuser, or any interested party. Until such a process runs its course, all parties are entitled to the presumption of innocence, and the public is entitled to patience rather than premature conclusions.

*For comments, reflections and further conversation on this piece, kindly reach the writer via email at samuelagogo4one@yahoo.com