By Joseph Oriowo
The latest campaign of calumny against the Chief of Staff to President Bola Tinubu, Hakeem Gbajabiamila, has crossed the line from political criticism into outright fabrication. The recent allegation by one Adeniyi Adeyemi that Gbajabiamila was “involved in the establishment” of a so-called Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council, and worse, that he “included” the said agency in the 2026 budget, shows how far detractors were willing to go in their desperate quest to stain Gbajabiamila’s pristine public service record and personal reputation.
Both claims are false, reckless, and betray a fundamental ignorance of how the Nigerian budgetary process works. The constitutional truth: the Chief of Staff has no budget authority. Let us begin with the law, because Adeyemi’s entire case collapses at this first hurdle. Under Nigeria’s Constitution and the Fiscal Responsibility Act, the power to propose, allocate, and include agencies in the annual budget rests solely with the Executive as a whole, through the Federal Ministry of Finance, the Budget Office of the Federation, and ultimately the President, who transmits the Appropriation Bill to the National Assembly.
The Office of the Chief of Staff is not a budgetary office. It is not a line ministry; it does not control the envelope system or issue budget call circulars. It does not sit on the Federal Executive Council as a voting member with a portfolio. The Chief of Staff’s statutory function is coordination, advisory, and administrative management of the Presidency. To allege that Gbajabiamila “included an agency in the 2026 budget” is therefore to allege that he performed an act for which he has zero legal authority. It is like accusing the President’s private secretary of signing treasury warrants. It cannot happen, because the system does not permit it.
Every agency that appears in the Appropriation Bill must have an enabling law, a mandate approved by FEC, and a budget code issued by the Budget Office after due process. No Chief of Staff can short-circuit that chain. Adeyemi has produced no budget circular, no FEC memo, no appropriation schedule with Gbajabiamila’s signature because none exists.
Adeyemi’s so-called PFIPC is not listed among MDAs. It has no Act of the National Assembly or gazetted establishment. If such a council exists at all, it would have to be created by presidential directive, followed by FEC approval, and then legislative backing if it is to draw public funds. The Chief of Staff is not a creator of agencies. He is neither the Secretary to the Government of the Federation nor the Attorney-General. He does not have the power to constitute councils of government by fiat.
Gbajabiamila’s role, if any, would be to schedule meetings, transmit documents, or ensure proper routing of memos. That is coordination. That is not “establishment.” To conflate the two is either deliberate mischief or dangerous incompetence.
The public deserves to know: Where is the establishment instrument? Where is the FEC extract? Where is the enabling legislation? Adeyemi cannot point to any, because the premise itself is a phantom.
Adeyemi’s allegations arrive at a time when the Tinubu administration is undertaking difficult but necessary reforms: subsidy removal, FX unification, tax reform, and efforts to attract foreign direct investment. These reforms are disruptive in the short term but essential for long-term stability.
In that climate, it is convenient for certain actors to manufacture distractions. By inventing a “Foreign Intervention Promotion Council” and linking it to the Chief of Staff, Adeyemi achieves three things:
He creates the illusion of a secret, unaccountable structure inside the Presidency.
He suggests budgetary recklessness in the 2026 Appropriation cycle.
He drags a key presidential aide into controversy, in an attempt to cause a distraction at the centre of government. This is sabotage, and Nigerians should call it what it is. For the benefit of citizens who may not be familiar, here is how an agency gets into the budget: Step 1: Policy approval – FEC must approve the establishment or mandate. Step 2: Legal backing – The National Assembly must provide statutory backing or recognize the MDA. Step 3: Budget Office coding – The Budget Office assigns a code, cost centre, and ceiling. Step 4: Presidential transmission – The President submits the Appropriation Bill to the National Assembly. Step 5: Legislative scrutiny – The National Assembly debates, amends, and passes the budget.
At no stage does the Chief of Staff appear in that chain. He is not the Minister of Finance, the DG Budget Office, or the Chairman of the Appropriations Committee. The allegation that he “included” an agency is therefore constitutionally illiterate.
If Adeyemi has evidence that Gbajabiamila bypassed these five steps, let him publish it. If he cannot, he owes the Chief of Staff, the Presidency, and the Nigerian people an unreserved apology.
Gbajabiamila did not arrive at the Presidency by accident. He served as Speaker of the House of Representatives, 9th Assembly, from 2019 to 2023. He presided over one of the most productive legislative sessions in recent history.
Under his leadership, the House passed the Finance Act, the Petroleum Industry Act, the CAMA Act, and the Electoral Act 2022. These were not easy bills. They required compromise, transparency, and integrity. Colleagues across party lines will attest: Gbajabiamila was a consensus-builder.
In over two decades of public service, he has not been indicted, convicted, or sanctioned by any anti corruption agency. His asset declarations are on record. His legislative votes are on record. His tenure as Speaker is a matter of public scrutiny. To describe that record as anything other than one of “unimpeachable integrity” is to ignore facts in favour of fiction.
The Chief of Staff has repeatedly stated that his public service is guided by three principles: truth, integrity, and a burning desire for national development. His record matches his rhetoric. He does not use proxies to create ghost agencies. He does not hide behind the Presidency to subvert the budget.
Gbajabiamila is a nationalist. As Speaker, he championed “Nigeria First” in procurement and local content. As Chief of Staff, he has been part of a team that is renegotiating Nigeria’s place in the world on terms of mutual respect, not servitude. To accuse him of promoting “foreign intervention” is not only false, it is the opposite of his known positions.
Nigeria’s democracy will not mature if we reward allegation over evidence. Public officeholders must be accountable, yes. But accountability requires proof. Innuendo cannot be dressed as investigation. That is not how to hold government to account; that is an avenue to poison public discourse.
Gbajabiamila does not need to be defended because he is powerful. He needs to be defended because the truth matters. The truth is that the Chief of Staff has no authority to include any agency in the budget. The truth is that he has no record of creating phantom councils. The truth is that his public service, from the House of Representatives to the Presidency, has been defined by truth, integrity, and a commitment to national development.
We can disagree with government policy. We must. But we must not lie about process to make our point. Nigeria deserves better. The allegation is false, the record is clear, and the Chief of Staff stands vindicated. To establish his innocence, the appropriate anti graft agency has been directed to investigate the allegations and take the necessary steps.
•Oriowo wrote in from Wuse, Abuja.
