Former Minister of Youth and Sports, Solomon Dalung, has criticised the Presidency’s defence of the Chief of Staff to the President, Femi Gbajabiamila, over the alleged activities of Prince Adeniyi Adeyemi Matthew, saying the official response leaves several critical questions unanswered.
Dalung was reacting to a statement by Presidential spokesman Bayo Onanuga, which sought to clear Gbajabiamila of any involvement in the matter.
According to Dalung, while the Presidency attempted to exonerate the Chief of Staff, its explanation highlighted what he described as significant gaps in government oversight.
He argued that regardless of the outcome of the ongoing court proceedings involving Adeyemi, the Presidency still owes Nigerians an explanation of how a purportedly fictitious presidential agency allegedly operated within government circles without being detected.
Dalung questioned how an individual could allegedly establish a fake government agency, forge an appointment letter, operate from the Federal Secretariat, recruit personnel, engage with government institutions, meet diplomats and reportedly obtain a Central Bank of Nigeria account without attracting official scrutiny.
He also expressed concern over reports that the alleged agency appeared in the national budget, noting that budget proposals undergo several stages of executive and legislative review before approval.
“If the council was fake, explain how it entered the budget,” Dalung said.
He added that the Presidency did not explain who introduced the budget provision, processed it or approved it during the budget process.
Dalung further questioned how office space was allegedly secured at the Federal Secretariat, asking which authority approved the allocation and why the operation was not discovered earlier.
He also referred to the Presidency’s mention of Dolapo Babatunde Tanimola, whom investigators reportedly identified as the person Prince Adeniyi Adeyemi Matthew claimed helped procure the alleged forged appointment letter before reportedly dying in a hotel fire days before Adeyemi’s arrest.
Dalung questioned whether investigators thoroughly examined the circumstances surrounding Tanimola’s death, including whether an autopsy, coroner’s inquest or forensic analysis of his communications and financial records was conducted.
While acknowledging that the allegations against Adeyemi are currently before the court, Dalung maintained that accountability should not end with prosecuting one individual.
He said the government should also explain how its institutions allegedly interacted with, or failed to detect, what the Presidency now describes as a fictitious agency.
Dalung called on the Presidency to make public documentary evidence, timelines and official records addressing the alleged inclusion of the agency in the national budget, its reported operations within the Federal Secretariat and the apparent failure of institutional safeguards.
