The combined efforts of Bayo Onanuga , Presidential Spokesman, Special Adviser on Media and Public Communication, Sunday Dare and scores of media consultants have not quite succeeded in assuaging the tide and flurry of public outrage following the scandal of the fallout of Prince Adeniyi Adeyemi , Femi Gbajabiamala in light of the operations of a Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council. In the midst of the claims and counter claims, one can see through the deep seated fortress of corruption right in the heart and engine room of the operations of the Federal Government. Many Nigerians are finding it pretty difficult to figure out how Prince Adeyemi could have possibly acted alone to issue to himself an appointment letter as Director General of the Agency under the Presidency. The Agency now described as phony has operated for close to three years and has been holding meetings across the country even with representatives of the diplomatic community. The Agency has also had a budgetary allocation of N1.3 billion in the 2026 National Budget. There is also a N27 billion take off grant which many believe the disbursement formula is at the core of the current fallout between Adeyemi and Gbajabiamala who is the Chief of Staff to the President. And to think that the CBN, the office of the Accountant General of the Federation and the Foreign Affairs Ministry were involved in one way or the other raises a high level of concern, reechoing Alan Paton’s Cry The Beloved Country. The more the spokespersons in defense of the Federal Government put up some frantic explanation as to what transpired, the more loopholes are opened revealing a national can of worms. When truth is trivialized, facts downplayed, Public communication turns puerile, infantile and disconnected from public sensibilities.
In frantic desperation, the Presidency mid last week said it had resorted to the path of litigation with Prince Adeniyi Adeyemi being charged with eight counts of conspiracy, forgery and impersonation before the Federal High Court in Abuja. Adeyemi is said to be due in court on Monday, July 27, 2026. Many however consider this as a time buying, face saving technique pending when the issue is swept under the carpet away from heated public discourse. Many commentators on the social media have had reasons to describe Adeniyi as the man of the moment and I largely think he rightly is. This is because through him the world has been able to have a window view as to how the presidency currently operates and why the borrowing spree will continue.
Nigerians have questioned the financial provisions linked to the purported agency, insisting that the government will have to explain how a whopping sum of N24bn was budgeted for an unknown agency, as well as how that agency had accounts with the Central Bank of Nigeria.
How on earth could a fictitious body have secured a CBN account and attracted a budget line?
Adeyemi on Thursday last week, addressed a press conference where he accused the Chief of Staff to the President, Gbajabiamila, of making contradictory statements regarding the existence of the PFIPC and the Presidential Economic Advisory Council.
He called for an independent investigation into the activities of the two agencies, while alleging that Gbajabiamila received N400m through a proxy and demanded an additional N200m to secure his appointment.
Adeyemi also alleged that the dispute between himself and the Chief of Staff stemmed from Gbajabiamila’s demand for 48 per cent of the PFIPC’s N27.4bn take-off grant, a request he said he (Adeyemi) rejected.
His words, “The major rationale behind the disagreement between myself and the chief of staff is that he allegedly requested 48 per cent of the take-off grant (N27,395,510,136) from the same agency, which he now denies, which I rejected after he collected a total sum of 400m by proxy, with a remaining balance of N200m to secure the said appointment,” he explained.
Adeyemi has so far insisted that he was compelled to speak following what he described as attempts to misrepresent him and suppress legitimate questions surrounding the agency.
He noted that if the PFIPC did not exist, as stated in Gbajabiamila’s disclaimer on June 11, the government should explain how references to the agencies allegedly appeared on pages 50 and 51 of the 2026 Appropriation Act.
Facts have also emerged of correspondences with the office of the Secretary to the Government of the Federation, SGF, which resulted in the allocation of office space and the deployment of staff. It indeed remains a disturbing paradox of our times that agencies that can improve on the nation’s healthcare, reduce the growing number of out-of- school children, reduce poverty and improve on food security have not been properly funded. Health workers and University teachers are constantly agitating for improved funding of their sectors. Meanwhile, phony agencies such as the one Adeyemi is heading are receiving expedited funding. What further proof do we need to be convinced that corruption, especially at the level of leadership remains the bane of our development as a nation. This level of corruption operates at the frequency of flagrant impunity while we are using EFCC and ICPC to hunt and hound down people of opposing political persuasions.
In climes where there are still traces or modicum of national ethos and recurs to personal integrity in public office, by now, some persons ought to have stepped down from office to allow for independent probe panel to do a thorough job alongside the ICPC.
The Presidency has instead, in a statement signed by the Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy given an account of the criminal case, including the police investigation report, the charges filed, and what it described as Adeyemi’s long history of fraudulent conduct.
Onanuga even went ahead to warn against weaponising the matter politically, saying, “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.”
In whichever way we may want to colour it, one thing remains Clare, PFIPC scandal puts budget integrity and governance process under scrutiny.
What may have began as the Presidency’s attempt to dismiss the Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council (PFIPC) as a fictitious organisation has however steadily snowballed into a far wider controversy over the integrity of Nigeria’s public institutions.
The main issue of concern has been how an agency declared non-existent could allegedly operate within government circles and appear in the 2026 Appropriation Act with a N1.3 billion allocations.
It is therefore not surprising that opposition leaders, lawyers, civil society groups and former senior government officials have intensified calls for an independent investigation, warning that the affair has become a test of the Tinubu administration’s commitment to transparency and accountability.
While the Presidency has firmly dismissed Adeniyi Adeyemi as an impostor and absolved Chief of Staff Femi Gbajabiamila of bribery allegations, the central question has shifted.
It is no longer simply whether Adeyemi forged documents; it is whether Nigeria’s governance systems contain such operational weaknesses significant enough to allow a fictitious institution to pass through multiple layers of official scrutiny.
The most important issue is not the bribery allegation itself. Rather, it is the budgetary trail.
Nigeria’s budget is not produced by a single individual. Before any agency receives an allocation, proposals typically originate from the relevant institution, undergo scrutiny by the Budget Office, receive executive approval through the Federal Executive Council, pass detailed committee examination in both chambers of the National Assembly and are ultimately signed into law by the President.
The implications are that if the Presidency maintains that PFIPC never legally existed, then one of Nigeria’s most fundamental public finance processes appears to have failed, as stakeholders pointed to implications far beyond this particular controversy. After a nation’s constitution, the next most sacred document is the constitution. If it can be violated in the manner as being exposed, then not much is left in the core of our integrity as a nation.
According to Adeyemi’s claims, the council also maintained office space within the Federal Secretariat, operated bank accounts through the CBN and secured recognition from the Office of the Head of the Civil Service.
One institution that may bear significant responsibility, and perhaps the greatest share of the blame, for the Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council (PFIPC) scandal is the current bicameral National Assembly under the leadership of Senate President Godswill Akpabio.
Right from the outset, and perhaps owing to the manner of his emergence as the first among equals in the federal parliament, Akpabio left little doubt that, under his watch, the line of oversight between the Executive and the Legislature could fade into near insignificance. That has remained the travesty of our democracy under the present dispensation.
The Akpabio-led National Assembly appeared to align itself closely with the Bola Ahmed Tinubu administration when, during the President’s first appearance to present the 2024 Appropriation Bill, lawmakers replaced the national anthem with President Tinubu’s campaign song, ‘On Your Mandate, We Shall Stand.’
Having elected to stand on the President’s mandate, the 10th National Assembly appeared to have effectively abdicated its constitutional role as a check on the Executive. Beyond making laws, the Legislature is charged with ensuring that the Executive operates within the rule of law and remains transparent and accountable in its conduct. The Akpabio led National Assembly has operated more as a rubber stamp of the presidency rather than a parliament representing the interest of Nigerians. This is dangerous for the effective workings of our democracy.
On whether the National Assembly could approve budgetary provisions without establishing whether such agencies existed, a former SGF explained that budgets are first compiled by ministries, departments and agencies (MDAs), presented by the Budget Office at the Federal Executive Council (FEC), and later defended by the MDAs.
“Usually, all budgets are aggregated under the supervising minister, and then he comes to defend them. Many times, even before it gets there, all MDAs defend their budgets before the Minister of Budget and Planning.
“So, there are processes. I don’t know how it can be done without the SGF knowing or without the Federal Executive Council knowing. The budget is forwarded to the National Assembly by the President after the Federal Executive Council has approved it, and after every MDA has defended it before the Budget Office.
That a line is appearing in a budget that has no owner is a serious procedural and constitutional aberration that Nigerians are demanding an explanation from the Tinubu administration.
Nigerians consider the allegations too grave to ignore and demand an urgent probe into all parties and institutions involved.
