PFIPC scandal: CDHR demands Gbajabiamila step aside pending probe

The Committee for the Defence of Human Rights (CDHR) has called for an independent investigation into grave allegations of bribery and abuse of office against Femi Gbajabiamila, the Chief of Staff to the President. The controversy stems from claims by Prince Adeniyi Adeyemi Matthew, who alleges Gbajabiamila demanded N27.4 billion and received N400 million to facilitate his appointment as Director-General of a purported Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council (PFIPC). While the Presidency dismisses Adeyemi as an impostor facing prosecution for fraud and forgery, and denies the PFIPC's existence, the CDHR insists Gbajabiamila should voluntarily step aside to ensure the probe's integrity and public confidence. This article examines the legal and ethical dimensions of these demands within Nigeria's public accountability framework, including the Code of Conduct for Public Officers and the mandates of anti-corruption agencies.

Nigeria's political landscape is once again gripped by allegations of corruption and abuse of office, this time involving a high-ranking official in the Presidency. Femi Gbajabiamila, the Chief of Staff to President Bola Tinubu, stands accused of demanding a staggering N27.4 billion and receiving N400 million in bribes to facilitate a public appointment. These claims were made by Prince Adeniyi Adeyemi Matthew, who purports to be the Director-General of a non-existent entity, the Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council (PFIPC).

The Committee for the Defence of Human Rights (CDHR) has swiftly reacted to these allegations, demanding an independent investigation and urging Gbajabiamila to voluntarily step aside from his influential position. This call is echoed by other civil society groups and political figures, who emphasize the need for transparency and accountability in public service. The Presidency, in its defense, has vehemently denied the allegations, asserting that Adeyemi is an impostor already facing criminal prosecution for forgery, impersonation, and fraud, and that the PFIPC is a fictitious agency. This article delves into the legal implications of these accusations, exploring the relevant statutory and constitutional provisions governing public officers' conduct and the powers of anti-corruption bodies in Nigeria.

The conduct of public officers in Nigeria is primarily governed by the Code of Conduct for Public Officers, enshrined in the Fifth Schedule, Part 1 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended). This Code mandates a high standard of morality and integrity, prohibiting public officers from placing themselves in positions where personal interests conflict with official duties, or from seeking or accepting property or benefits on account of actions taken or omitted in the discharge of their responsibilities. Part 2 of the Fifth Schedule broadly defines public officers to whom this Code applies, encompassing a wide range of government officials, including those in the civil service of the Federation. While the office of the Chief of Staff to the President is not explicitly listed in the Constitution, it is a high-ranking official position established by presidential prerogative, wielding significant influence and managing the Office of the President. As such, the occupant is generally considered a public officer subject to the Code of Conduct.

To enforce these ethical standards, the Constitution established the Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB) and the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) through the Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal Act. The CCB is tasked with receiving asset declarations from public officers and investigating alleged breaches of the Code, while the CCT adjudicates such breaches and can impose various punishments, including the seizure and forfeiture of property acquired through corruption or abuse of office. Beyond these, Nigeria's anti-corruption architecture includes the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC), established by the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act 2000, and the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), established by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (Establishment) Act 2004. These agencies possess broad powers to investigate, prosecute, and prevent corruption, bribery, fraud, and other financial crimes in both public and private sectors.

The current scandal presents a complex interplay of allegations and counter-allegations, testing the robustness of Nigeria's accountability mechanisms. Prince Adeyemi Matthew's claims of bribery and abuse of office against the Chief of Staff, Femi Gbajabiamila, are serious and, if proven, would constitute grave breaches of the Code of Conduct for Public Officers, particularly Paragraphs 1, 6, and 9 of the Fifth Schedule, Part 1 of the 1999 Constitution, which prohibit conflict of interest, acceptance of gratification, and abuse of office. The alleged demand for a percentage of a take-off grant and the receipt of bribes directly contravene these provisions. Furthermore, the reported appearance of the 'fictitious' PFIPC in the 2026 Appropriation Act with budgetary allocations raises critical questions about financial transparency and oversight within government institutions.

The Presidency's counter-narrative, asserting that Adeyemi is a fraudster already facing prosecution for forgery and impersonation, introduces a significant dimension to the legal battle. This suggests a potential criminal conspiracy on Adeyemi's part, which would also fall under the investigative purview of agencies like the EFCC and ICPC, whose mandates include investigating fraud, impersonation, and other related offences. The existence of a formal police investigation initiated by Gbajabiamila himself in October 2025 further complicates the public perception and legal trajectory of the matter.

The demand by CDHR and other groups for Gbajabiamila to "voluntarily step aside" pending an independent investigation is rooted in ethical governance principles rather than a direct statutory mandate for the Chief of Staff. While Nigerian law does not explicitly compel a public officer to step aside upon mere accusation, the call aligns with international best practices aimed at preserving the integrity of an investigation, preventing perceived interference, and maintaining public confidence in government institutions. Legal practitioners often advise public officials in such situations to consider temporary withdrawal to avoid creating an impression of undue influence, especially given the immense power associated with the Chief of Staff's office. The argument is that his continued presence could be seen as an impediment to a fair and impartial probe, regardless of the presumption of innocence.

The powers of the anti-corruption agencies, particularly the ICPC and EFCC, are extensive. They can investigate allegations of bribery, corruption, and financial crimes, and where sufficient evidence exists, initiate prosecution. The Code of Conduct Bureau also has a constitutional role in investigating breaches of the Code of Conduct. The challenge lies in ensuring that these investigations are truly independent and perceived as such by the public, especially when allegations involve high-ranking officials. The calls for an "independent investigative panel" underscore the public's desire for a process untainted by political influence.

This case also highlights potential gaps or weaknesses in Nigeria's budgeting and financial control systems, as questioned by civil society groups, if a non-existent entity could indeed receive budgetary allocations. Such a scenario would necessitate a broader systemic review, potentially involving the Budget Office, the Office of the Accountant-General of the Federation, and the Central Bank of Nigeria, as suggested by some commentators. The outcome of this dual-pronged controversy—allegations against Gbajabiamila and the prosecution of Adeyemi—will undoubtedly set precedents for public accountability and the handling of corruption claims against senior government officials in Nigeria.

The PFIPC scandal, with its intricate web of accusations and counter-accusations, underscores the persistent challenges of public accountability and transparency in Nigeria. The demand by the CDHR and other stakeholders for an independent investigation into the allegations against the Chief of Staff, Femi Gbajabiamila, and for him to voluntarily step aside, reflects a critical public expectation for ethical governance and the rule of law. While the Presidency maintains its stance that the accuser is a fraudster and the alleged agency non-existent, the gravity of the claims—especially concerning budgetary allocations to a purported fictitious entity—necessitates a thorough and impartial inquiry.

For legal practitioners, this case highlights the importance of understanding the interplay between constitutional provisions on public conduct, the mandates of anti-corruption agencies, and the evolving standards of ethical governance. Advising public officers on the implications of such allegations, navigating the complexities of investigations by multiple agencies, and advocating for transparency will be paramount. The resolution of this scandal will serve as a crucial test of the current administration's commitment to fighting corruption and upholding public trust, setting a precedent for how similar high-profile cases are handled in the future. All eyes will be on the government's response and the actions of the relevant investigative and prosecutorial bodies to ensure justice and accountability prevail.