Gbajabiamila vs Adeyemi: Internal Collaborators Enabled PFIPC Fraud, Presidency Alleges

The controversy surrounding the alleged Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council (PFIPC) exploded into a full‑blown national storm on Saturday, as fresh revelations suggested that the alleged mastermind, Prince Adeniyi Adeyemi, may have operated the fictitious agency with the help of insiders embedded within government institutions.

ValidViewNetwork reports that the Presidency has now accused internal collaborators of enabling Adeyemi’s elaborate scheme, even as the Kwankwasiyya Movement demanded a full public explanation over reports of budgetary allocations linked to the non‑existent council.

ValidViewNetwork reports that the dispute has intensified the confrontation between the Chief of Staff to the President, Femi Gbajabiamila, and Adeyemi, whom the Presidency insists ran a “sophisticated fraud” by parading himself as Director‑General of the PFIPC. While the Presidency maintains that the council “never existed,” critics argue that reports of budgetary provisions tied to an entity bearing the same or similar name raise troubling questions that require an independent investigation.

Temitope Ajayi, Senior Special Assistant to the President on Media and Publicity, said investigators from the Department of State Services (DSS), the Nigeria Police Force, and the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) must identify and prosecute those within government institutions who allegedly assisted Adeyemi.

ADVERTISEMENT

According to Ajayi, “there is no doubt that internal collaborators helped Adeyemi forge presidential appointment letters, maintain 34 bank accounts in the names of fictitious government agencies, host foreign ambassadors and even open a Central Bank of Nigeria account while parading himself as head of the PFIPC.”

Ajayi added: “What is not in doubt is that internal collaborators enabled Adeniyi to get this far. That is precisely what investigators from the DSS, the Police and the EFCC must now unravel. The criminal network within the affected institutions must be dismantled, and everyone found to have played a role should be arrested and prosecuted.” He described Adeyemi as “an irredeemable con artist” who allegedly exploited public perceptions about corruption by dragging Gbajabiamila into the controversy “to shield himself from criminal liability.”

He argued that although many commentators had criticised the institutional failures that allowed the alleged fraud to flourish, they had ignored the fact that the same system eventually detected the irregularities. According to him, officials of the Nigerian Investment Promotion Commission (NIPC) and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs identified anomalies surrounding the activities of the purported council and reported the matter to the appropriate authorities, leading to official action.

The Presidency on June 11, 2026, issued a public disclaimer informing foreign missions, financial institutions and international organisations that the PFIPC had no official status and that no appointment had been made under its name. It further maintained that Adeyemi had already been arraigned before the Federal High Court in Abuja on an eight‑count charge bordering on fraud and forgery. According to the Presidency, he allegedly operated 34 bank accounts linked to “fictitious” government agencies and fraudulently opened a Central Bank account using forged documents. He is expected to return to court on July 27, alongside two accomplices said to be at large.

Meanwhile, the Kwankwasiyya Movement insisted that the controversy had gone beyond the actions of one individual and had become a major issue of public accountability. In a statement signed by its spokesperson, Dr. Habibu Sale Mohammed, the movement said the Presidency’s insistence that PFIPC never existed had failed to answer several critical questions arising from reports that over ₦1 billion was allocated to an entity bearing the same or similar name in the 2026 Appropriation Act.

The group asked: “If the council never existed, how did it find its way into the national budget? Who proposed and approved the allocation? Which government offices processed the documentation? Was any public money released or committed? If official documents were allegedly forged, how did they remain in use for such a long period without detection?”

The movement described the questions as matters of public accountability rather than partisan politics, adding that the Tinubu administration’s commitment to transparency and institutional reform would be judged by its willingness to provide a full explanation. It warned that conflicting official accounts or attempts to shift responsibility could further erode public confidence in government and damage Nigeria’s international reputation, urging the National Assembly, anti‑corruption agencies and other oversight bodies to conduct an independent investigation.

The Presidency’s position has continued to attract criticism. Human rights lawyer Femi Falana earlier argued that the Presidency lacked the constitutional authority to exonerate anyone connected with the matter. He called on the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) to independently investigate both Gbajabiamila and Adeyemi, while demanding an explanation for how billions of naira were allegedly appropriated to a council the government now insists never existed and how it was able to operate within official institutions for an extended period.

As the controversy widens, one thing has become unmistakably clear: this is no longer a simple case of alleged forgery but a test of Nigeria’s institutional integrity. ValidViewNetwork reports that the unfolding drama has placed the Presidency, the National Assembly, and the nation’s anti‑corruption agencies under intense public scrutiny. Whether this moment becomes a turning point for transparency or another chapter in Nigeria’s long struggle with institutional loopholes will depend on how boldly and honestly the government confronts the questions now before it because in matters of public trust, silence is never an option, and clarity is the only path to restoring confidence.