Did Gbajabiamila Know? The Unanswered Questions at the Heart of Nigeria's Fake Agency Scandal

At the centre of Nigeria's Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council (PFIPC) scandal sits one unresolved question: did Chief of Staff Femi Gbajabiamila know Prince Adeniyi Adeyemi Matthew, or was he as the Presidency insists an unwitting victim of an elaborate impersonation scheme? The official record and the accuser's claims now sit in direct contradiction, and neither side has produced evidence that fully settles the matter.

The Official Position: No Relationship, No Knowledge
The Presidency's account is unambiguous. Special Adviser Bayo Onanuga has repeatedly stated that Gbajabiamila denied ever appointing Matthew or recognizing his purported council, stressing that Matthew was not a government appointee and had no connection to any recognized presidential agency. The Presidency points to a documented paper trail: Gbajabiamila's office first flagged the scheme on October 17, 2025, when the Chief of Staff petitioned the Department of State Services and police after officials of the Nigerian Investment Promotion Council complained that another agency appeared to be operating at cross-purposes with it. On November 5, 2025, Gbajabiamila reportedly reiterated in writing that Matthew's council was "unknown to any office “and that his office had no dealings with the said council. When Matthew resurfaced with bribery allegations while out on bail, Gbajabiamila issued a fresh disclaimer on June 8, 2026, again branding him an impostor.

The Accuser's Version: A Falling-Out Over Money
Matthew's own account tells a very different story. He alleges Gbajabiamila demanded roughly ₦27.4 billion from the agency's take-off grant and personally received ₦400 million through proxies to facilitate his appointment as director-general, with an additional ₦200 million still allegedly owed. He claims the unpaid balance triggered a falling-out between them, and has separately alleged attempts on his life, including an incident on the Abuja–Kaduna Expressway, along with a suspicious death of an alleged intermediary, Babatunde Tanimola, in a fire days before Matthew's own arrest. He has called for an independent panel including civil society and international observers to compel Gbajabiamila to produce every document he has signed for forensic review, and has demanded the Chief of Staff step aside pending investigation.

Why the Presidency's Account Doesn't Fully Close the Question
Even commentators sympathetic to the Presidency's position have noted the official explanation raises problems of its own. Opposition figures have pressed the government on specifics it has yet to answer directly: how a supposedly non-existent agency secured a ₦1.3 billion allocation in the 2026 national budget, and how Matthew was able to operate an office at the Federal Secretariat Complex, hold meetings with foreign ambassadors, and open a Central Bank of Nigeria account all without triggering institutional alarm for over a year.

Former Vice President Atiku Abubakar's media office has argued that the alleged engagements suggest the organization operated openly, making the Presidency's description of it as a "ghost agency" difficult to reconcile with publicly available records , and has renewed calls for Gbajabiamila to publicly account for his role rather than rely on a press statement. Atiku's camp has also stressed that the ₦400 million bribery claim itself as opposed to the broader forgery case has not been independently investigated.

What the Presidency Has Not Directly Addressed
Notably, the Presidency's rebuttals have focused heavily on establishing that the agency was fictitious and that Matthew is a serial fraudster with a documented history of impersonation including a 2016 episode in which he falsely claimed to lead a UN-affiliated youth organization. What the Presidency has not done is offer a direct, itemized rebuttal of the ₦400 million bribery allegations itself, beyond broadly dismissing Matthew's claims as those of a "criminal enterprise." That gap between disproving the agency's legitimacy and disproving the specific financial allegation against Gbajabiamila is precisely where opposition figures and commentators are now pressing.

Where This Leaves Things
The Presidency has urged the public to await the outcome of Matthew's trial, scheduled to resume July 27, arguing that the matter is sub judice and that commentary risks prejudicing proceedings. That is a reasonable caution for a live criminal case but it does not, on its own, answer the budgetary question of who inserted ₦1.3 billion for an agency the government now calls non-existent, nor does it constitute an independent verification of Gbajabiamila's conduct. Until an inquiry separate from the Presidency's own internal account addresses those two specific gaps, the dilemma you're pointing to will likely persist in Nigerian public discourse: a documented paper trail of denials on one side, and an unresolved financial and institutional question mark on the other.

Mustapha Bature Sallama.
Medical/ Science Communicator,
Private Investigator, Criminal investigation and Intelligence Analysis.
International Conflict Management and Peace Building.USIP
[email protected]
+233-555-275-880

Sources
Daily Post Nigeria, "PFIPC: Atiku demands probe, questions Gbajabiamila over N400m bribery claim," July 2, 2026

Daily Post Nigeria, "Gbajabiamila: Who smuggled N1.3bn into PFIPC budget," July 2, 2026

The Telegraph Nigeria, "Presidency clears Gbajabiamila of cash-for-appointment allegations," July 1, 2026

Politics Nigeria, "Presidency Breaks Silence on Bribery Allegation Against Gbajabiamila," July 1, 2026

Tribune Online, "Presidency reacts to bribery allegation against Gbajabiamila," July 1, 2026

Akelicious, "Gbajabiamila Petitioned DSS, Police Over Fake Presidential Agency, Presidency Reveals," July 2, 2026