PFIPC: N15bn lawsuit can’t substitute for public investigation, by Ejiro Ofoye

The controversy surrounding the Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council (PFIPC) is no longer an ordinary disagreement between two individuals. It has become a serious test of governmental accountability, institutional integrity and Nigeria’s commitment to transparency, freedom of expression and the rule of law.

The Chief of Staff to the President, Rt. Hon. Femi Gbajabiamila, has reportedly instituted a N15 billion defamation suit against Prince Adeniyi Adeyemi Matthew before the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja. The action followed serious allegations made publicly by Adeyemi concerning the creation and operation of the PFIPC. Among other things, Adeyemi alleged that Gbajabiamila demanded 48 per cent of a purported N27.3 billion take-off grant, received N400 million through an intermediary and demanded an additional N200 million.

Gbajabiamila has categorically denied the allegations. He maintains that he never met, communicated with or had any personal, official or professional relationship with Adeyemi. He denies receiving N400 million, directly or indirectly, demanding another ¦ 200 million, requesting any percentage of a take-off grant, abusing his office or authorising any person to collect money on his behalf. He also denies allegations connecting him with the death of one Babatunde Tanimola and any alleged attempt on Adeyemi’s life. According to reports, he contends that the allegations caused grave damage to his personal and professional reputation and to the integrity of the Office of the Chief of Staff. He is reportedly seeking N10 billion in general damages, N5 billion in aggravated damages and N200 million as the cost of the action, alongside retractions and public apologies.

No responsible commentator should prejudge the case. Adeyemi’s claims remain allegations, while Gbajabiamila’s denials must equally be tested against evidence before a court of competent jurisdiction. That is precisely how the rule of law operates. Yet, while the courts determine the issue of defamation, Nigerians are entitled to ask broader questions that cannot simply disappear because a lawsuit has been filed.

The central issue is not merely whether Gbajabiamila and Adeyemi ever met physically. The more disturbing question is how an organisation which the Presidency describes as fictitious allegedly penetrated several layers of the Nigerian state and appeared to operate with the trappings of governmental legitimacy.

The Presidency has stated that PFIPC did not exist under the Tinubu administration and that no appointment was made authorising Adeyemi to lead such an organisation. It also stated that the Office of the Chief of Staff petitioned security agencies over alleged forged appointment letters, signatures, official seals and presidential documents. It further claimed that the purported organisation operated from an office within the Federal Secretariat Complex, held meetings involving Nigerians and foreigners, sought diplomatic assistance and allegedly misled public institutions into treating it as a government agency.

These are not minor administrative irregularities. Even if the Presidency’s account is accepted in full, Nigerians are entitled to ask how a purportedly fictitious organisation secured office space inside a federal government complex. Who allocated the office? What documents were presented? Which officials processed and approved them? How did the organisation reportedly interact with diplomatic representatives and officials of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs? How were bank accounts allegedly opened in the name of an institution which the Presidency says did not exist? There is also the disputed question of whether PFIPC, or a similarly described institution, appeared anywhere in the 2026 federal budget or related appropriation documents. Those questions deserve answers through transparent investigation, not political rhetoric.

These matters cannot be resolved merely by establishing that Gbajabiamila and Adeyemi never met face-to-face. In an age of intermediaries, telephone calls, electronic messages and digital documents, the absence of a physical meeting may be relevant, but it cannot terminate every legitimate inquiry. Equally, no individual should be held responsible for the unauthorised actions of impostors merely because they invoked his name. That is why an independent investigation remains indispensable.

Every Nigerian, including a public office-holder, has the constitutional right to protect his reputation. Freedom of expression is not a licence to manufacture allegations or accuse people of crimes without a factual basis. At the same time, Section 39 of the Constitution guarantees freedom of expression, including the freedom to receive and impart information. The law of defamation therefore seeks to balance these competing interests. It protects reputation while preserving legitimate public debate.

What should concern Nigerians is the increasing tendency of powerful public officials to respond to demands for accountability with astronomical claims for damages. A claim of N15 billion against an individual carries an intimidating weight far beyond the defendant. It sends a message to journalists, whistleblowers, civil society organisations and ordinary citizens that asking uncomfortable questions about those in power could expose them to financially ruinous litigation.

This observation does not mean that Adeyemi should be protected if he knowingly fabricated allegations. Anyone making accusations of bribery, corruption or abuse of office must be prepared to present credible evidence before the court. Accountability, however, must operate in both directions. A public official who denies an allegation should not rely exclusively on the financial weight of a defamation suit. He should equally welcome an open, impartial and evidence-driven examination of the underlying events.

The Office of the Chief of Staff is one of the most influential positions in government. Allegations touching such an office are naturally matters of public interest. Public office carries authority, influence and privilege, but it must also carry a greater obligation to explain, disclose and submit to scrutiny. Litigation may determine whether Adeyemi defamed Gbajabiamila, but it will not necessarily determine how PFIPC allegedly obtained office accommodation, interacted with government institutions, approached diplomatic missions or opened bank accounts. Those are wider questions of institutional governance that deserve answers.

There is another dimension to the controversy. Adeyemi is reportedly facing criminal charges involving allegations of forgery, impersonation and obtaining by false pretence. Like every Nigerian standing trial, he remains entitled to the constitutional presumption of innocence until proven guilty. The fact that he has been accused of forgery does not automatically establish that everything he has alleged is false. 

Likewise, the fact that he accused a powerful public official does not establish that his allegations are true. Both positions require evidence.

The concern arises when the coercive institutions of the state appear to move swiftly against the accuser while the substantive allegations involving persons within government are not subjected to an equally transparent investigation. Justice must not only pursue the alleged forger. It must also examine every institution and official whose action, negligence or complicity may have enabled an allegedly fictitious body to operate. If PFIPC was entirely fraudulent, then the alleged fraud could not have travelled so far without passing through several administrative gates. The gatekeepers must also account for their actions.

Records relating to office allocation should be examined. Bank account documentation should be scrutinised. Relevant communications, approvals and budget records should be traced. Every alleged intermediary should be investigated. Anything less will deepen the perception that Nigeria operates one system of justice for ordinary citizens and another for politically exposed persons.

The Presidency has already taken a firm position by describing Adeyemi as an impostor and presenting the council as fictitious. While that may reflect information supplied by security agencies, it also demonstrates why an inquiry controlled solely by the Presidency may not command sufficient public confidence. The Office of the Chief of Staff is directly affected by the allegations. It cannot reasonably serve as investigator, witness and final judge in the same matter. An independent inquiry therefore remains imperative.

The relevant anti-corruption and law-enforcement agencies should investigate every financial and institutional aspect of the controversy without fear or favour. The investigation must not be limited to Adeyemi alone. It must follow the evidence wherever it leads. The National Assembly also has a constitutional responsibility to exercise oversight where serious allegations involving public institutions arise. Parliamentary oversight is not an act of hostility against the executive; it is one of the pillars of constitutional democracy.

The amount claimed as damages also deserves scrutiny. How was the figure of N15 billion reached? What measurable loss corresponds with that amount? Those are questions that will undoubtedly arise before the court. Damages should remain compensatory, proportionate and just. They should never become instruments for financially annihilating defendants or discouraging citizens from discussing matters of legitimate public concern.

The proper response to grave allegations is an equally serious investigation. If Adeyemi lied, a transparent inquiry will expose him. If documents were forged, forensic examination should establish their origin. If intermediaries falsely invoked the name of the Chief of Staff, their communications and financial transactions should reveal the truth. Conversely, if any public official, civil servant or intermediary participated in wrongdoing, Nigerians equally have a right to know.

This controversy must not be reduced to a contest between supporters and opponents of the Tinubu administration. It is not enough for government supporters to declare Gbajabiamila innocent because he occupies a powerful office. It is equally irresponsible for government opponents to pronounce him guilty merely because an allegation has been made. The rule of law demands evidence, not emotion.

Adeyemi must produce the evidence supporting his allegations if he possesses any. Gbajabiamila and the relevant government institutions should equally make available the records necessary to establish how the alleged organisation interacted with public agencies and how government responded at every stage. Governments earn credibility not by suppressing difficult questions but by answering them openly.

Even if every allegation against the Chief of Staff is eventually proved false, the apparent failures in document authentication, access control, inter-agency communication and institutional verification would still require thorough investigation and reform. Nigeria cannot afford a system in which forged documents can allegedly secure office accommodation, diplomatic visibility and official recognition without multiple institutional failures.

Femi Gbajabiamila has every constitutional right to approach the courts to protect his reputation. Adeyemi equally has every constitutional right to defend himself and rely on every lawful defence available to him. The courts should be allowed to determine the defamation action without interference. However, the Nigerian people are interested in something much broader than a private legal dispute. They deserve to know how a purportedly fictitious presidential body allegedly penetrated the federal bureaucracy and acquired the appearance of legitimacy.

A N15 billion lawsuit may ultimately determine whether one man’s reputation was unlawfully damaged. It cannot, by itself, resolve the troubling institutional questions raised by the PFIPC controversy. The government must therefore resist every temptation to allow litigation to replace accountability. There must be an independent investigation, a transparent examination of all relevant records and a commitment to follow the evidence wherever it leads.

Only then will justice not only be done but also be seen to have been done. That is what constitutional democracy demands. That is what accountability requires. And that is what Nigerians deserve.

*Dr Ejiro Ofoye writes from Lagos.

The post PFIPC: N15bn lawsuit can’t substitute for public investigation, by Ejiro Ofoye appeared first on Vanguard News.