This colourful tale deserves a thorough investigation
The escalating controversy over a “fake” federal government agency is unhelpful to the current administration of President Bola Tinubu and the country’s collective reputation. In fact, it is a massively damaging issue with grave implications for public and global perception of the integrity of Nigerian institutions, and the credibility of systems and processes, especially at the highest level of government in the country. Coming at a period the administration is engaged in critical economic reforms and international initiatives that require the confidence of investors, development partners and the Nigerian public, there is need for more transparency on the issue.
The idea that a federal government parastatal, as confirmed by the presidency, can be invented out of thin air by a “scammer” and that the entity can proceed to exercise its invented mandate publicly for months, issuing statements, engaging top government officials and international partners, operating from government premises, securing public servants and even appearing in the federal budget without detection suggests that there may be more to this story.
The facts that have emerged in the public space since Prince Adeniyi Adeyemi Mathew surfaced with allegations against the Chief of Staff to the President, Mr Femi Gbajabiamila, underscore the gravity of what is now a full-blown public scandal. Adeyemi alleged that Gbajabiamila was connected with his ‘appointment’ and made financial demands. Presidential spokesman, Mr Bayo Onanuga, has dismissed the allegations while describing Adeyemi as an impostor who is already facing criminal charges for forgery, impersonation and related offences. The presidency insists that neither the Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council nor the Presidential Economic Advisory Council exist.
Ordinarily, that should have settled the matter. Instead, it has raised even more troubling questions. If a private individual can carve out chunks of authority and con his way into acceptance by heads of critical government institutions, then something is tragically wrong. From available records, Adeyemi was able to access the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), National Assembly, Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Office of the Secretary to the Government of the Federation and several important institutions. Besides, there are worrying gaps in the accounts of both Adeyemi’s colourful story and the presidency’s defence of Gbajabiamila.
If, as the presidency maintains, the agency never existed, how did it find its way into the 2026 Appropriation Act with a budgetary allocation exceeding N1.3 billion? How did it obtain office accommodation within the Federal Secretariat? How were public officers deployed to it from the Office of the Accountant General of the Federation? How did it transact official business with ministries, departments and agencies as well as with foreign entities on behalf of Nigeria over several months without anyone raising the alarm until late 2025? How did it obtain a government domain account? How was it able to open multiple bank accounts with the CBN? These, and many more, are legitimate questions that deserve credible answers, not dismissive explanations.
Indeed, available reports suggest that the allegedly fictitious agency functioned with many of the outward attributes of a legitimate government institution. Whether this resulted from an elaborate criminal conspiracy, gross institutional negligence or collusion by insiders is precisely what an independent investigation must establish. Merely branding someone a charlatan does not adequately explain how multiple safeguards across the public service apparently failed simultaneously. Trust in government is already fragile, and any official effort that appears evasive will only deepen public cynicism.
We urge the Tinubu administration to treat this as more than a public relations challenge. It is a test of its commitment to transparency and institutional integrity. In his statement last week, Adeyemi accused the presidency of shrouding the entire saga in “a cloud of public misrepresentation, institutional denial, and deliberate attempts to silence legitimate questions that concern a matter of public interest.”
That is a weighty statement that demands nothing less than a thorough, independent investigation and a transparent public accounting of the facts. On this controversy, Nigerians deserve to know who authorised what, who benefited, who looked the other way and how such an extraordinary situation was allowed to develop. That process should be followed by firm action against anyone found culpable, irrespective of status or office. Only then can confidence be restored, institutional credibility protected, and the right lessons learnt.