Gbajabiamila and His Multi-Dimensional Foes

Although not new to crisis, this time, the Chief of Staff to the President, Hon. Femi Gbajabiamila, might be up in arms against entrenched principalities, writes Shola Oyeyipo

Afew public officials in contemporary Nigeria have attracted the volume, intensity and persistence of attacks that have trailed the tenure of the Chief of Staff to the President, Femi Gbajabiamila.

Since assuming office, he has found himself at the centre of a whirlwind of allegations, insinuations, conspiracy theories and politically motivated narratives, many of which have collapsed under the weight of scrutiny, evidence and common sense.

Yet, what is perhaps most remarkable is not the allegations themselves. Public office, especially at the highest levels, naturally attracts criticisms.

Rather, it is the determination with which certain interests have sought to manufacture controversy around Gbajabiamila, even in the absence of proof, that deserves closer examination.

Indeed, long before the latest controversy involving a self-styled “government official” whose credibility has been questioned in multiple quarters, the Chief of Staff had become a permanent target of political actors, opportunists and professional propagandists.

At various times, he was accused of influencing appointments for pecuniary gains. At other times, he was portrayed as the invisible hand behind decisions taken by government at the expense of some interests.

The accusations became so relentless that President Bola Tinubu himself had to publicly intervene, making it clear that many decisions being attributed to his Chief of Staff were ultimately presidential decisions.

In essence, the president took ownership of the actions of his administration and, by implication, rejected attempts to create a fictional power centre around Gbajabiamila. That intervention was significant.

It was not merely a defence of an aide. It was an acknowledgement that certain interests were deliberately constructing a narrative aimed at weakening a trusted official through sustained misinformation. Years later, the pattern remains unchanged.

The names may change. The allegations may evolve. The methods may become more sophisticated. But the underlying motivation remains largely the same.

To understand the phenomenon, one must first understand the different categories of forces that have positioned themselves against Gbajabiamila.

 The Politics of Envy and Jealousy

The first and perhaps most visible category consists of individuals whose opposition is rooted primarily in envy. There is no denying that Gbajabiamila’s political trajectory is extraordinary.

From representing a constituency in Lagos, he rose through the ranks to become Minority Leader, House Leader, Speaker of the House of Representatives and ultimately Chief of Staff to the President.

Not many politicians in Nigeria’s democratic history have enjoyed such a consistent rise without suffering the kind of career-ending setbacks that often define political life.

His journey reflects decades of political organisation, coalition building, legislative experience and strategic discipline.

Unfortunately, success often attracts resentment. For some observers, Gbajabiamila’s achievements are not viewed as products of hard work, competence or political skill. Rather, they are seen through the distorted lens of jealousy.

This explains why some critics seem incapable of acknowledging any accomplishment without attaching sinister motives to it. If he secures a strategic position, they assume manipulation. If he earns the confidence of a president, they assume conspiracy. If he survives a political storm, they assume hidden sponsors.

In their worldview, merit cannot exist because admitting merit would require acknowledging his capabilities. Thus, they invent alternative explanations.

The unfortunate reality is that envy has become one of the most powerful drivers of political discourse in Nigeria. Rather than celebrating excellence, many seek to destroy it. Rather than competing fairly, they prefer to delegitimise.

Rather than building their own political capital, they invest energy in diminishing the achievements of others. Gbajabiamila has become one of the most prominent victims of this culture.

Those Who Want His Job

The second group is more political and perhaps more understandable. These are individuals who genuinely desired the office he currently occupies. The office of Chief of Staff is one of the most influential positions in government.

It provides proximity to the president and carries immense administrative responsibilities. Naturally, many political heavyweights coveted the position.

When Gbajabiamila was appointed, not everyone celebrated. Some felt overlooked. Others believed they were more qualified.

A few convinced themselves that the office should have been theirs by right. Such disappointments are normal in politics. What is abnormal, however, is when disappointment evolves into permanent hostility. Unable to accept the president’s decision, some individuals allegedly embarked on a long-term campaign to undermine the occupant of the office.

Every rumour became useful. Every controversy became an opportunity. Every allegation became a weapon. The objective was simple: create enough turbulence around Gbajabiamila to either diminish his influence or force his removal.

Yet this strategy has repeatedly failed because allegations alone do not constitute evidence. Politics cannot operate on speculation forever. After years of accusations, the fundamental question remains unanswered: Where is the proof?

If allegations of corruption, influence peddling and abuse of office were truly as extensive as some claim, surely evidence would have emerged by now. Instead, what has emerged is a cycle of claims, denials and eventual silence when facts fail to support sensational headlines. This pattern speaks volumes.

The Clairvoyants and Fear of Tomorrow

Perhaps the most fascinating category consists of what may be described as political clairvoyants. These are individuals who spend more time worrying about Gbajabiamila’s future than he does himself. To them, every development is interpreted through the prism of future political contests.

If he performs well as Chief of Staff, they see a governorship ambition. If he gains visibility, they see preparations for higher office. If he receives praise from influential figures, they see succession planning and a man at the centre of it.

In their imagination, Gbajabiamila had already been elected governor long before the party primary that elected Dr. Obafemi Hamzat; appointed to a higher national office or positioned for some future role.

As a result, they have commenced fighting battles that do not yet exist. The irony is striking. Many of these fears are based entirely on speculation. There is no official declaration. No campaign organisation. No formal political movement. Yet opposition has already been mobilised against hypothetical scenarios.

This phenomenon reveals a deeper reality. Political actors do not fear irrelevance. They fear relevance.

Nobody worries about a politician they consider insignificant. Nobody organises sustained campaigns against someone they regard as politically finished.

The intensity of opposition often reflects the perceived strength of the target. In many ways, the obsession with Gbajabiamila’s future says more about his critics than it does about him. Their fears are admissions. Their anxiety is acknowledgement.

Their hostility is recognition.

Latest Episode and Crisis of Credibility

The latest allegations involving an individual whose public reputation has come under serious scrutiny fit neatly into this broader pattern. The first question any serious observer should ask is straightforward: where is the evidence?

In matters of public appointments, government operates through documentation, approvals and official records. Claims require proof. Accusations require substantiation. Allegations require evidence.

Without these, public discourse degenerates into theatre. What makes the latest controversy particularly curious is that it relies heavily on the assertions of an individual whose own credibility has become a central issue.

When the accuser himself becomes the subject of legitimate questions, prudence demands caution. The burden of proof remains with the accuser. That principle is fundamental to justice. It cannot be suspended simply because the target is a prominent public official.

Beyond the Noise

The larger lesson from the Gbajabiamila story is that prominence inevitably attracts opposition. The higher one rises, the larger the target becomes. But public judgment should be based on facts rather than rumours, evidence rather than assumptions, and performance rather than propaganda.

For years, Gbajabiamila has endured accusations from different directions. The allegations have varied. The accusers have changed. The narratives have evolved. Yet a consistent pattern remains: dramatic claims followed by insufficient proof.

This does not mean public officials should be immune from scrutiny. Far from it. Accountability is essential in any democracy.

However, accountability must be distinguished from persecution, and criticism must be distinguished from character assassination.

Otherwise, how do you explain the fact a man with evident credibility question, brazenly accused the chief of staff he has never met in person but allegedly through a mysterious interface, he claims no longer exists and yet the undiscerning opposition and their affiliate mob want the head of Gbajabiamila on the slab?

In the final analysis, the multi-dimensional opposition confronting Gbajabiamila appears less like a coordinated pursuit of truth and more like a convergence of envy, disappointment and political anxiety. Some resent his rise. Some resent his appointment. Some fear his future.

Together, they have created an ecosystem of suspicion in which rumours are elevated into facts and assumptions masquerade as evidence.

But history has a way of separating noise from substance. And when that separation occurs, what often remains is not the allegations themselves, but the motivations of those who made them.