Political Leaders Divided Over Gbajabiamila’s Role in PFIPC Probe

Abuja, Nigeria – Political leaders and civil society groups have expressed differing opinions over the role of President Bola Tinubu’s Chief of Staff, Femi Gbajabiamila, in the ongoing investigation into the controversial Presidential Foreign Investment Promotion Council (PFIPC), an agency the Presidency insists does not legally exist.

The controversy follows allegations by Prince Adeyemi Adeniyi, who claimed to be the Director-General of the PFIPC, that he paid ₦400 million through a proxy to secure his appointment. Gbajabiamila has strongly denied the allegation, while the Presidency has described Adeniyi as a fraudster and maintained that the Federal Government never established the council.

The Coalition of United Political Parties (CUPP) has called on President Tinubu to temporarily relieve Gbajabiamila of his duties, arguing that such a move would ensure transparency and public confidence in the ongoing investigation. The group believes that allowing the Chief of Staff to remain in office during the probe could undermine its credibility.

Similarly, aides to former Vice President Atiku Abubakar have urged the government to constitute an independent investigative panel rather than relying solely on internal inquiries. They argue that conflicting accounts from government institutions over the PFIPC’s operations require an impartial investigation.

However, some political figures and civil society leaders have defended Gbajabiamila, insisting that no conclusive evidence currently links him to wrongdoing. They argue that investigations should be allowed to run their course and that no official should be judged solely on the basis of allegations.

Meanwhile, the House of Representatives’ Ad Hoc Committee continues to investigate how the purported council allegedly operated within government institutions and secured a budget allocation despite the Presidency’s insistence that it was never legally established. The outcome of the investigation is expected to determine whether any public officials or institutions bear responsibility for the controversy.