PRESIDENCY DISMISSES APPOINTMENT-FOR-CASH ALLEGATIONS AGAINST GBAJABIAMILA, LABELS ACCUSER AN IMPOSTOR

Read Time:3 Minute, 3 Second

By Aishat Momoh. O.

The Presidency has dismissed allegations linking the Chief of Staff to the President, Femi Gbajabiamila, to an alleged appointment-for-cash scandal, describing his accuser, Adeniyi Matthew, as an impostor and serial fraudster currently facing criminal prosecution.

The rebuttal followed allegations by Matthew, who claims to be the Director-General of the Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council/Presidential Economic Advisory Council, that Gbajabiamila demanded N27.4 billion from the take-off grant of the purported agency and received N400 million through proxies to facilitate his appointment, with an outstanding balance of N200 million.

Matthew also alleged that disagreements over the unpaid balance led to tensions and claimed there had been attempts on his life. He called for an independent investigation into the allegations and urged the Chief of Staff to step aside pending the outcome.

However, in a statement issued on Wednesday by the Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, Bayo Onanuga, the Presidency described the allegations as fabricated and accused Matthew of impersonation and forgery.

According to the statement, security agencies have been investigating Matthew since October 2025 after the Office of the Chief of Staff petitioned the Department of State Services (DSS) and the Nigeria Police Force over the alleged forgery of official appointment letters and impersonation of government officials.

The petition reportedly urged security agencies to identify and apprehend those responsible for the alleged criminal acts, which it said undermined the integrity of the Presidency and official government communications.

The Presidency further disclosed that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs raised concerns after Matthew allegedly convened a meeting with ambassadors in Abuja without the ministry’s knowledge or approval.

It added that enquiries from the Office of the National Security Adviser and the Office of the Secretary to the Government of the Federation prompted Gbajabiamila to formally deny appointing Matthew or recognising the purported agency.

According to the statement, the Chief of Staff described Matthew’s appointment letter as fake and directed security agencies to investigate both him and the organisation he claimed to represent.

The Presidency said police investigations established that the agency was fictitious and that Matthew allegedly forged appointment letters and other official documents while falsely presenting himself as a presidential appointee.

Investigators were also said to have searched his office in Abuja and residence in Suleja, where documents allegedly linking him to the fraud were recovered.

According to the statement, police further discovered that Matthew operated 34 bank accounts, including nine allegedly opened in the names of fictitious government agencies, and fraudulently obtained a Central Bank of Nigeria account by misleading the Office of the Accountant-General of the Federation.

The Presidency quoted the police as stating that Matthew’s actions amounted to criminal forgery, impersonation and obtaining by false pretence, thereby bringing the Office of the Chief of Staff and the Presidency into disrepute.

It added that Matthew and two other defendants were arraigned before the Federal High Court in Abuja on an eight-count charge in November 2025, with the case adjourned until July 27, 2026, for hearing.

The Presidency also noted that the latest allegations were made while Matthew was on police bail and were inconsistent with statements he had earlier made to investigators.

It said Gbajabiamila had already issued a public disclaimer on June 8, reiterating that Matthew was unknown to his office and warning the public against dealing with him.

The Presidency urged politicians and members of the public not to rely on the allegations, stressing that the matter is already before the court.

It advised interested parties to await the outcome of the ongoing trial rather than draw conclusions while the case remains sub judice.