Presidency defends Gbajabiamila, says alleged DG forged appointment letter

The Nigerian Presidency recently exposed a case of alleged forgery and impersonation involving one Adeyemi Adeniyi Matthew, who purportedly claimed to be the Director-General of a non-existent Presidential Economic Advisory Council. This incident highlights the severe legal ramifications for individuals who fabricate official government documents and falsely assume public office. Under Nigerian law, particularly the Criminal Code Act and the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act, such acts constitute serious felonies, attracting significant penalties including lengthy imprisonment and forfeiture of illicit gains. The case underscores the government's commitment to upholding the integrity of public service and combating fraudulent activities that undermine national institutions and public trust.

The integrity of public institutions and the authenticity of official government communications are cornerstones of good governance. A recent development in Nigeria has brought these critical aspects into sharp focus, with the Presidency denying the existence of a Presidential Economic Advisory Council purportedly headed by one Adeyemi Adeniyi Matthew as its Director-General. This denial, coupled with allegations that Matthew forged his appointment letter, has ignited a crucial conversation about the legal framework governing forgery, impersonation, and the protection of public office in Nigeria.

This incident is not merely an administrative misstep but a serious criminal matter with profound implications for public trust and the rule of law. The alleged actions of Adeyemi Adeniyi Matthew, who is reportedly already facing criminal prosecution, demonstrate a blatant disregard for established legal processes and the sanctity of government appointments. This article delves into the relevant Nigerian laws on forgery and impersonation, examines the potential legal consequences for perpetrators, and discusses the broader implications for governmental integrity and the fight against corruption.

The core issue revolves around the fabrication of an official document to claim a non-existent or falsely represented public position, thereby undermining the credibility of the Presidency and official government communication. The article will explore how Nigerian statutes address such offences and the role of anti-corruption agencies in investigating and prosecuting these crimes.

In Nigeria, the legal framework for addressing criminal acts like forgery and impersonation is primarily enshrined in the Criminal Code Act, which applies to the Southern States, and the Penal Code Act, applicable in the Northern States. These statutes define and prescribe punishments for a wide range of offences against persons, property, and public order. Forgery, in particular, is treated with gravity due to its potential to undermine trust in documents and institutions.

The Criminal Code Act, specifically Sections 465, 467, and 468, defines forgery as the making of a false document with the intent that it may be used or acted upon as genuine, to the prejudice of any person, or to induce a person to act or refrain from acting in the belief that it is genuine. The penalties for forgery vary significantly based on the nature of the forged document. While a general punishment of three years imprisonment is prescribed, forgery of public seals, registers, or documents relating to public revenue or acts of the State can attract imprisonment for up to fourteen years, and in some severe cases, life imprisonment.

Beyond forgery, the act of impersonation, as outlined in Section 378 of the Criminal Code, involves assuming another person's identity with the intent to deceive, typically carrying a punishment of up to three years imprisonment. Furthermore, providing false information to a public officer, prohibited by Section 125 of the Criminal Code, is an offence punishable by up to six months imprisonment or a fine. These provisions collectively form a robust legal deterrent against individuals seeking to fraudulently assume public roles or mislead government officials.

The alleged actions of Adeyemi Adeniyi Matthew, in purportedly forging an appointment letter to head a fictitious Presidential Economic Advisory Council, fall squarely within the ambit of these criminal provisions. The Presidency's explicit denial of the existence of such a council *as headed by Matthew* and the assertion that the agency itself was fictitious are crucial. While a legitimate Presidential Economic Advisory Council (PEAC) exists as a non-statutory body advising the President on economic policy, and President Tinubu recently established a Presidential Economic Coordination Council (PECC), the specific entity and role claimed by Matthew were deemed fraudulent.

Matthew's alleged conduct could lead to charges under multiple sections of the Criminal Code Act. The act of creating a false appointment letter constitutes forgery under Section 465, with the intent to deceive and gain undue advantage. Given that the document purports to be an official government appointment, the penalties could be substantial, potentially attracting up to fourteen years imprisonment under Section 467, especially if it relates to public service or government acts. Furthermore, by presenting himself as the Director-General of a presidential council, Matthew could face charges of impersonation under Section 378 of the Criminal Code.

Beyond the Criminal Code, the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) and the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) have broad mandates to investigate and prosecute such offences. The ICPC Act 2000 empowers the Commission to investigate corrupt practices, including fraud and abuse of office, and to prosecute offenders. Similarly, the EFCC Act 2004 grants the EFCC powers to investigate and prosecute economic and financial crimes, which would encompass the fraudulent use of forged documents to obtain pecuniary or official advantage. A notable precedent is the ICPC's successful prosecution of an individual for forging an appointment letter of the National Identity Management Commission (NIMC), leading to a 35-month jail term and an order for restitution of fraudulently received salaries.

The fact that security agencies had been investigating Adeyemi since October 2025, following a petition from the Office of the Chief of Staff regarding alleged forgery and impersonation, indicates a coordinated effort to address such criminal acts. The recovery of documents linked to the fraud and the discovery of multiple bank accounts, some allegedly opened in the names of fictitious agencies, further strengthen the prosecution's case. The ongoing arraignment of Matthew and two others before the Federal High Court on an eight-count charge for forgery, impersonation, and false representation underscores the seriousness with which the Nigerian legal system views these offences.

The alleged forgery of a presidential appointment letter and the impersonation of a public official by Adeyemi Adeniyi Matthew serve as a stark reminder of the persistent challenges posed by fraudulent activities in Nigeria's public sector. The swift and decisive response from the Presidency and law enforcement agencies, including the ongoing prosecution, reinforces the commitment to maintaining the integrity of government institutions and ensuring accountability.

For legal practitioners, this case highlights the robust legal framework available under the Criminal Code Act, the Penal Code Act, and the enabling statutes of anti-corruption agencies like the ICPC and EFCC, to combat forgery, impersonation, and related offences. Attorneys should advise clients on the severe penalties associated with such crimes, which can range from significant prison terms to forfeiture of assets. Furthermore, this incident underscores the critical importance of due diligence in verifying official documents and appointments, particularly in a landscape where sophisticated fraudulent schemes can emerge. The outcome of Adeyemi Matthew's trial will undoubtedly set a further precedent, reinforcing the message that attempts to subvert public service through deceit will be met with the full force of the law.