The controversy surrounding the alleged Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council (PFIPC) has taken a fresh turn, with several civil society organisations and legal practitioners calling on President Bola Tinubu to suspend his Chief of Staff, Femi Gbajabiamila, and allow an independent investigation into the matter.
The groups argued that the credibility of any probe could be questioned if top government officials linked to the allegations remain in office while investigations are ongoing. They maintained that suspending Gbajabiamila would help ensure transparency and public confidence in the process.
This development comes after President Tinubu directed the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) to investigate the controversy and submit its findings within 30 days.
However, some stakeholders have expressed reservations about the move. They insist that an investigation handled solely by a government agency may not be enough to address public concerns surrounding the allegations.
One of the civil society advocates who reacted to the matter said placing the Chief of Staff on suspension would allow investigators to work without interference.
“If he (Gbajabiamiala) was placed on suspension, ICPC can be independent”, one of them said.
The activist further questioned the Presidency’s handling of the matter, arguing that public statements issued so far appeared to have taken a position before the completion of investigations.
“When the Presidency has taken a position in the matter already, exonerated him, apportioned blame without a thorough investigation, that is to tell you that the government is a joke of some sort.
“And this is why many people are not taking this government seriously.
“You can’t just convince me otherwise because come to look at it holistically, yes, the ICPC should do an independent job, not to be teleguided but it is going to be burdened by the stance of the Presidency.
“The Presidency cannot even investigate itself – you can’t be a judge, jury and executioner over your own matter. The investigation should be done by independent people”.
The controversy began after Matthew Adeniyi Adeyemi, who identified himself as the head of the PFIPC, claimed that the agency was legitimately established and operated with official backing.
Adeyemi alleged that he received an appointment letter connected to the office of the Chief of Staff and also claimed that the agency was included in government budgetary plans. According to him, provisions amounting to about N1.3 billion were captured for the council in the proposed 2026 budget.
He further maintained that the organisation was not a fictitious body and had been operating from the Federal Secretariat in Abuja with more than 300 staff members.
The claims sparked widespread public debate and raised questions about the existence, legal status and funding of the agency.
Gbajabiamila has strongly denied any involvement in the establishment or operations of the PFIPC. The Chief of Staff also threatened legal action against Adeyemi, demanding N10 billion in damages over what he described as defamatory claims.
Despite the denial, pressure has continued to mount on the government to provide a detailed explanation of how the agency allegedly operated and whether public funds were committed to its activities.
Political figures have also joined calls for a transparent investigation.
Former Vice President Atiku Abubakar, who is expected to contest the 2027 presidential election on the platform of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), said Nigerians deserve a full account of what transpired.
“Something is fundamentally wrong within the machinery of this administration. Nigerians deserve the whole truth, not carefully scripted press statements. We therefore demand a truly independent investigation that follows the evidence wherever it leads. No sacred cows. No political protection. No selective justice”.
Lawyers who commented on the issue acknowledged that the President has the constitutional authority to direct anti-corruption agencies to investigate allegations of public interest.
However, they stressed that investigators must be allowed to carry out their duties without pressure or interference from any quarter.
According to them, public confidence in the outcome of the investigation will depend largely on the independence, transparency and fairness of the process.