Presidency must face accountability over Gbajabiamila claims: PDP
Translated from English, summarized and contextualized by DistantNews.
At a glance
- The PDP demands an independent investigation into allegations surrounding the Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council (PFIPC).
- The party insists the Presidency cannot evade accountability over claims involving Chief of Staff Femi Gbajabiamila.
- PDP cites alleged impostor involvement and potential corruption, calling the situation a pattern of governance failures.
Nigeria's opposition Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) is demanding President Bola Tinubu order an independent forensic investigation into allegations concerning the Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council (PFIPC). The party insists the Presidency must be held accountable for claims involving the Chief of Staff to the President, Femi Gbajabiamila.
The PDP stated that the controversy presents the Presidency with two damaging scenarios: either a failure of government safeguards allowing an alleged impostor access to high levels, or proven corruption at the heart of government if the allegations against the Chief of Staff are true. The opposition party argues that Nigerians deserve answers regardless of which version is correct.
The Presidency cannot escape accountability by choosing between corruption and incompetence. If its version is true, it has admitted to an unprecedented collapse of institutional safeguards. If Prince Matthewโs version is true, it has exposed corruption at the heart of government. Either way, Nigerians deserve answers.
In a statement, the PDP's Interim National Working Committee spokesman, Comrade Ini Ememobong, highlighted allegations by Prince Adeniyi Matthew regarding Gbajabiamila soliciting and receiving financial inducements for PFIPC appointments and subsequent demands. The party criticized the Presidency's response, which labeled Prince Matthew an impostor, arguing it raises more questions about how such an individual allegedly gained access, received authorization for office space, staff, and conducted business with federal institutions.
The PDP characterized this controversy as the latest in a series of governance failures, referencing other issues such as appointments of deceased individuals, presidential pardon controversies, and alleged financial scandals. The party asserts that the Presidency cannot escape accountability by choosing between incompetence and corruption.
How did an alleged impostor gain unrestricted access to the Presidency? Who authorised the allocation of office space? Who approved the deployment of staff and budgetary resources? How were official accounts established? Who permitted him to transact with federal institutions and security agencies? These are questions that cannot simply be dismissed through a press statement.
Originally published by Vanguard in English. Translated, summarized, and contextualized by our editorial team with added local perspective. Read our editorial standards.