Presidency’s defence of Gbajabiamila leaves key questions unanswered, says Dalung

Former Minister of Youth and Sports, Solomon Dalung, has faulted the Presidency’s response to allegations surrounding the activities of Prince Adeniyi Adeyemi Matthew, insisting that the explanation offered in defence of the Chief of Staff to the President, Femi Gbajabiamila, failed to address key issues.

Dalung’s reaction followed a statement issued by the Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, Bayo Onanuga, which distanced Gbajabiamila from the controversy and described claims linking him to the alleged fake agency as false.

In a statement on Thursday, Dalung argued that while the Presidency sought to absolve the Chief of Staff of any wrongdoing, it did not explain how an agency it now describes as fictitious allegedly operated within government institutions for an extended period without being detected.

According to him, the issue extends beyond the ongoing criminal trial of Adeyemi and raises broader concerns about accountability and institutional oversight.

“The Presidency still owes Nigerians answers. Beyond the prosecution of one individual, the public deserves to know how a purportedly fake government agency allegedly operated within official circles without detection,” Dalung said.

He questioned how the suspect allegedly established a non-existent government agency, forged an appointment letter, operated from the Federal Secretariat, recruited staff, interacted with government institutions, held meetings with diplomats and reportedly obtained a Central Bank of Nigeria account without attracting the attention of relevant authorities.

Dalung also expressed concern over reports that the alleged agency appeared in the national budget, noting that budget proposals are subjected to scrutiny by both the executive and the legislature before receiving approval.

“If the council was fake, explain how it entered the budget,” he said.

He maintained that the Presidency did not explain who proposed the budgetary allocation, who processed it through the various stages of approval or how it eventually formed part of the national budget.

The former minister further demanded clarification on how office accommodation was allegedly secured for the organisation at the Federal Secretariat, asking which government office authorised the allocation and why no red flags were raised throughout its operations.

Dalung also raised questions over the circumstances surrounding the death of Dolapo Babatunde Tanimola, whom the Presidency identified as the individual Prince Adeniyi Adeyemi Matthew allegedly claimed assisted him in obtaining the purported forged appointment letter.

He queried whether investigators had carried out a thorough inquiry into Tanimola’s death, including conducting an autopsy, a coroner’s inquest and forensic examinations of his communications and financial records.

While acknowledging that the allegations against Adeyemi are already before the court, Dalung insisted that the judicial process should not prevent the government from explaining how its institutions allegedly interacted with—or failed to uncover—what it now describes as a fictitious agency.

He called on the Presidency to release documentary evidence, official records and a clear timeline explaining the alleged agency’s inclusion in the national budget, its reported operations from the Federal Secretariat and the apparent failure of existing institutional safeguards to detect the alleged fraud earlier.