Fresh reactions have emerged following the Presidency’s defence of Chief of Staff to the President, Femi Gbajabiamila, over Gbajabiamila allegations linking him to an alleged appointment-for-cash scheme. Opposition figures, legal practitioners and members of the public have called for an independent investigation, while some have demanded his resignation.
The latest responses followed a statement issued on Wednesday by the Presidency dismissing allegations made by Adeniyi Matthew, who claimed Gbajabiamila demanded billions of naira from the take-off grant of a purported federal agency and received N400 million through intermediaries to facilitate his appointment. The Presidency rejected the claims, describing Matthew as an impostor and a serial fraudster.
Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, Bayo Onanuga, said Matthew was neither appointed by the Federal Government nor recognised as the head of the alleged Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council or Presidential Economic Advisory Council. According to the Presidency, security agencies have been investigating Matthew since October 2025 over allegations of document forgery, impersonation of government officials and related offences.
It also stated that police investigations found the agency in question did not exist and alleged that Matthew forged appointment documents, impersonated government officials, operated multiple bank accounts, including some allegedly opened in the names of fictitious agencies, and obtained a Central Bank account through false representations. The Presidency urged Nigerians to disregard the allegations against Gbajabiamila, noting that the matter is already before the court.
Despite the official response, the Gbajabiamila allegations continued to generate public debate. Demola Olarenwaju, Senior Political Assistant to former Vice President Atiku Abubakar and the African Democratic Congress (ADC) presidential campaign, argued that the Presidency’s explanation failed to resolve key concerns. In a post on X, he said the official statement suggested either negligence or possible complicity.
“By the watery presidential rebuttal, Gbajabiamila is either guilty of connivance or guilty of negligence. If that fellow scammed himself into Nigeria’s budget, Gbajabiamila must be sacked for negligence. If they connived as suspected, he should be prosecuted.”
Lawyer Festus Ogun also commented on the controversy, describing it as reflective of wider governance concerns. Another legal practitioner, Muhammed Adam, questioned the consistency of the official narrative, saying he found aspects of the account difficult to reconcile.
Several Nigerians also expressed their views on social media, with many calling for an independent and transparent investigation into the allegations. Some questioned how an individual could allegedly operate a fictitious federal agency, secure budgetary allocations and establish official accounts without institutional failures or internal collaboration.
Others argued that a comprehensive investigation would be necessary to clarify the circumstances surrounding the case and strengthen public confidence in government institutions. Some commentators further suggested that public officials should be held accountable if any wrongdoing is established, while others maintained that no conclusions should be reached until investigations and ongoing legal proceedings are completed.
The Gbajabiamila allegations have continued to generate political and public attention despite the Presidency’s firm denial of the claims. While government officials insist the accusations are unfounded and the matter is already before the courts, opposition figures, lawyers and members of the public continue to call for an independent investigation to establish the full facts surrounding the controversy.
