Here, Our Managing Editor, Ekuson Nw’Ogbunka, in Abuja takes a critical look at the Federal Government’s (FG’s) decision to list Chief of Staff to the President, Femi Gbajabiamila, and 10 others, as the prosecution witnesses in the criminal trials of Prince Adeniyi Adeyemi for allegedly operating a non-existent agency, the Presidential Foreign Investment Promotion Council (PFIPC). Read the excerpts.
This FG’s decision has elevated what began as an impersonation case into a matter of institutional credibility. Adeyemi’s trial centers on accusations that he operated a non-existent agency, PFIPC, and used forged presidential documents to give it weight. With the Chief of Staff now expected to testify, the case will test how far alleged fraudsters went to mimic state authority, and how quickly the system detected them.
At the core of the prosecution’s case is an eight-count charge against Adeyemi, with two other suspects, Femi and Anu, named but still at large. The charges include conspiracy, forgery, impersonation, and related offences allegedly committed between 2024 and 2025. The government argues that the defendants did not act in isolation, but ran what it describes as a fake Federal Government agency complete with documents, seals, and official-looking correspondence.
A critical point in the filings is the role assigned to high-level state officials as witnesses. Three officials from the Office of the Accountant-General of the Federation are listed alongside Gbajabiamila. Their inclusion suggests the prosecution intends to establish two things: that official financial and administrative records do not recognize PFIPC, and that documents bearing presidential authority were never issued from the Presidency.
The most serious allegation concerns a forged appointment letter. Prosecutors claim Adeyemi presented a letter purportedly signed by President Bola Tinubu and counter-signed by the Chief of Staff, Gbajabiamila, to claim the title of Director-General (DG) of PFIPC. If proven, this moves the case beyond impersonation into the forgery of instruments that are meant to be the highest expression of executive authority.
The alleged method reveals a deliberate attempt to manufacture legitimacy. According to the documents allegedly said to have been obtained by a media organization, the suspects were accused of using forged papers carrying presidential insignia, reference numbers, and official seals. The goal appears to have been to deceive both Nigerians and foreign nationals by creating the appearance of a valid government council where none existed.
The case entered public view after a petition from the Office of the Chief of Staff. An interim report by the Inspector-General of Police (IGO) Monitoring Unit states that the Presidency alerted police to reports of individuals circulating fake appointment letters said to have originated from the Presidency. That referral is significant because it shows the alleged fraud was flagged at the level it sought to impersonate.
Police investigators say the counterfeit documents contained forged signatures, fabricated reference numbers, and counterfeit seals. These elements were allegedly deployed to present PFIPC as a legitimate body. From a critical standpoint, the specificity of the forgeries raises questions about access to templates, knowledge of protocol, and the ease with which official insignia can be reproduced outside government custody.
Beyond the paper trail, investigators allege that Adeyemi actively projected authority. He reportedly held meetings with Nigerians and foreign nationals while presenting himself as head of the fictitious agency. This operational phase is important for the prosecution because it links the documents to conduct, and conduct to intent to deceive.
The alleged reach extended into diplomatic channels. Investigators claim Adeyemi wrote to government institutions, including the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, seeking diplomatic support for visa processing. He is also said to have requested a Note Verbale to the United States Embassy for individuals described as PFIPC staff. If substantiated, this shows an attempt to externalize the fraud and use it to obtain consular privileges.
Adeyemi was arrested on October 27, 2025, following intelligence gathering and surveillance, according to the police report. The timing and method of arrest will likely be scrutinized at trial, because the prosecution must show that the interception followed due process and that evidence was preserved without contamination.
Searches at his office and residence in Suleja, Niger State, reportedly yielded multiple items. These include alleged forged appointment letters, official letterheads, correspondence to ministries and agencies, and documents bearing presidential insignia. The recovery is central to the forensic case, but the defense will be expected to test the chain of custody and the authenticity of each item.
During interrogation, Adeyemi allegedly named Dolapo Babatunde Tanimola as the person who helped him obtain the disputed appointment letter. Police say further checks found that Tanimola had died in a fire incident in Abuja. This twist complicates the narrative, because it removes a key alleged accomplice from the possibility of testimony and cross-examination.
Viewed critically, the case exposes vulnerabilities in how government identity is protected and verified. The fact that an individual could allegedly convene meetings, write to ministries, and seek diplomatic notes under a fake council suggests gaps in public awareness and inter-agency verification. It also underscores why the appearance of senior officials, including Gbajabiamila, as witnesses matters, because their testimony can draw a clear line between genuine presidential authority and its imitation.
Ultimately, the trial will be more than a determination of Adeyemi’s culpability. It will be a public audit of document security, institutional response time, and the boundaries of impersonation in an era of sophisticated forgery. With 11 witnesses listed, including the Chief of Staff and AGF officials, the prosecution is signaling that it intends to prove not just that a crime occurred, but that the state itself was the primary victim of the deception.
