The Chief of Staff to the President, Femi Gbajabiamila, has filed a N15 billion defamation suit against Adeniyi Adeyemi, the man accused of operating the fake Presidential Foreign Investment Promotion Council (PFIPC).
Mr Gbajabiamila filed the suit at the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Abuja, on Wednesday (15 July), accusing Mr Adeyemi of falsely demanding a 48 per cent kickback from a N27.3 billion take-off grant approved for the purported federal agency.
The suit came about nine days after Mr Gbajabiamila’s cease-and-
Mr Gbajabiamila, in the suit likely filed because his demands were unmet, is seeking N10 billion in general damages and N5 billion in aggravated damages over what he described as a sustained campaign of false and malicious allegations that gravely damaged his personal reputation and the integrity of the Office of the Chief of Staff to the President.
He is also asking the court to order Mr Adeyemi to pay N200 million as the cost of the suit, publish an unconditional retraction and apology in five national newspapers, and post the same apology on every social media and online platform where the allegations were circulated for at least 30 consecutive days.
The suit, filed through the law firm of Pinheiro LP, is being led by Kemi Pinheiro, who is a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN).
Court documents seen by PREMIUM TIMES on Thursday show several declaratory and injunctive prayers, with Mr Gbajabiamila insisting that the allegations made against him were entirely false, malicious and calculated to portray him as a corrupt public official who abused the powers of his office for personal enrichment.
Adeyemi’s allegations against Gbajabiamila
According to the statement of claim, the controversy arose after Mr Adeyemi addressed a press conference on 25 June during which he accused the president’s chief of staff of demanding a 48 per cent kickback from a N27.3 billion take-off grant allegedly approved for a federal agency.
Mr Adeyemi also alleged that N400 million had already been paid through a proxy acting on behalf of Mr Gbajabiamila. At the same time, another N200 million was allegedly demanded to facilitate presidential approvals connected to the grant.
Beyond the bribery allegation, Mr Adeyemi accused the Chief of Staff of using his office to manipulate security agencies, interfere with investigations, intimidate individuals and media organisations, and shield himself from accountability.
The defendant further claimed that the late Babatunde Tanimola served as an intermediary between him and Mr Gbajabiamila in the alleged financial arrangement.
He also alleged that Mr Tanimola died under suspicious circumstances in a hotel fire in Utako, Abuja, on 22 October 2025, barely a day after the Chief of Staff allegedly petitioned the police over the matter.
Mr Adeyemi further claimed that he survived an assassination attempt along the Abuja-Kaduna Expressway in September 2025. He alleged that unnamed powerful interests directed the State Security Service (SSS) and the Nigeria Police Force (NPF) to discontinue efforts to recover mobile phones which he claimed contained evidence supporting his allegations.
Denial
Mr Gbajabiamila flatly denied every allegation.
In his court filings, he maintained that he had never met Mr Adeyemi, never communicated with him directly or indirectly, and never authorised anyone to act on his behalf in relation to any financial transaction.
“The Claimant has never met the Defendant, never held any meeting with him and has never authorised any intermediary, representative, agent or proxy to demand or receive money on his behalf,” the statement of claim stated.
Mr Gbajabiamila also denied demanding any percentage of a government grant, receiving N400 million through any intermediary, requesting an additional N200 million, or participating in any arrangement resembling the allegations made by the defendant.
He further denied knowing the late Mr Tanimola or having any involvement in the circumstances surrounding his death.
The Chief of Staff also rejected allegations that he abused his office by influencing or directing the activities of the Nigeria Police Force, the Department of State Services, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC), or any other law enforcement or security agency.
According to the suit, the allegations were widely circulated through traditional and social media platforms, exposing the claimant to public ridicule and significantly damaging his reputation within Nigeria and abroad.
Defendant’s alleged admissions, cease-and-desist notice
According to the court filings, Mr Gbajabiamila stated that he first became aware of the allegations after members of his staff, friends and professional associates drew his attention to recordings of Mr Adeyemi’s press conference and the widespread media reports that followed.
He said he subsequently watched the full recording of the briefing and reviewed newspaper reports, television broadcasts and online publications reproducing the allegations.
The Chief of Staff told the court that he was “profoundly disturbed” by the claims, which accused him of demanding unlawful financial benefits, receiving money through intermediaries, abusing the powers of his office, interfering with law enforcement agencies and engaging in other acts of serious misconduct.
Maintaining that every allegation was false, Mr Gbajabiamila explained that he instructed his solicitors to immediately challenge the publications.
As a result, his lawyers issued a cease-and-desist letter dated 6 July demanding that Mr Matthew immediately withdraw the allegations, publish an unequivocal retraction and tender an unconditional public apology.
The notice was subsequently published in several national newspapers, including THISDAY, on 7 July, after the claimant stated that he believed the allegations might have resulted from misinformation and expected the defendant to retract them voluntarily.
However, rather than withdraw the allegations, Mr Gbajabiamila alleged that Mr Adeyemi continued granting interviews in which he repeated the claims.
One of those interviews, according to the court documents, was with social media influencer Martins Vincent Otse, popularly known as VeryDarkMan.
In his witness statement on oath, Mr Gbajabiamila told the court that Mr Adeyemi made several statements during the interview which, in his view, substantially contradicted the certainty with which he had presented the allegations at the earlier press conference.
According to the claimant, Mr Adeyemi admitted during the interview that he had never met Mr Gbajabiamila in person and had never communicated with him through a telephone conversation, video call or any other means capable of independently confirming his identity.
Instead, Mr Gbajabiamila revealed that the defendant acknowledged that all the information linking him to the alleged bribery arrangement came through the late Mr Tanimola, whom Mr Adeyemi claimed acted as an intermediary.
The claimant further alleged that Mr Adeyemi also conceded during the interview that he could neither say that Mr Gbajabiamila was lying nor affirm that he was telling the truth, adding that he intended to submit the documents in his possession to law enforcement agencies for forensic examination and verification.
According to Mr Gbajabiamila, those statements materially differed from the categorical allegations made during the earlier press conference, where the defendant had presented the accusations as established facts rather than claims requiring independent verification.
The claimant argued that despite those admissions, Mr Adeyemi continued to publicly insist that he demanded a 48 per cent kickback from the alleged government grant and received hundreds of millions of naira through an intermediary.
The suit further states that Mr Adeyemi repeated the allegations during an appearance on Politics Today, a current affairs programme on Channels Television, on 13 July.
Mr Gbajabiamila contended that the interview took place several days after the cease-and-desist notice had been served and published, yet the defendant allegedly restated the same accusations without providing any independently verified evidence to support them.
According to the claimant, the continued interviews demonstrated a deliberate decision to sustain and amplify the allegations despite being formally notified that they were false and defamatory.
He argued that the repeated publications fuelled widespread public discussion, generated extensive media coverage and triggered enquiries from political associates, professional colleagues, friends and well-wishers within and outside Nigeria.
Mr Gbajabiamila told the court that the publications caused what he described as grave and continuing damage to both his personal reputation and the integrity of the Office of the Chief of Staff to the President.
He maintained that although he had spent decades in public service as a legal practitioner, member of the House of Representatives, Majority Leader, Speaker of the House of Representatives and now Chief of Staff to the President, the allegations portrayed him as a public official who exploited his office for personal gain.
The claimant noted that he instituted the action not because he objected to public scrutiny, but because the defendant presented serious allegations of corruption, bribery, abuse of office and interference with security agencies as established facts without first verifying them.
He insisted that he had never met or communicated with Mr Adeyemi, directly or indirectly, had never authorised anyone to negotiate or receive money on his behalf and had no involvement whatsoever in any of the transactions or events described by the defendant.
Criminal case, witnesses and evidence
The court documents also disclosed that Mr Adeyemi is facing a criminal prosecution regarding his operation of the fake PFIPC before the Federal High Court in Abuja.
in the case marked FHC/ABJ/CR/652/2026, the police are prosecuting Mr Adeyemi on charges, including forgery of presidential documents and appointment letters.
The trial judge, Mohammed Umar, ordered his arrest on Tuesday following his absence from court. Hours later, the police arrested him in Osun State.
Mr Gbajabiamila’s legal team argued that the documents forming the subject of the criminal case were among those the defendant relied upon in making the allegations against him.
Gbajabiamila to testify
Mr Gbajabiamila, who is the list of prosecuiton witnesses submitted to the court in the criminal trial, also indicated that he will testify personally at the defamation trial.
Court filings also identify two former members of the House of Representatives as witnesses: Adekoya Adesegun Abdel-Majid, former Deputy Minority Whip of the 9th House of Representatives, and Henry Nwawuba, Executive Secretary of the National Assembly Library Trust Fund and former member representing Mbaitoli/Ikeduru Federal Constituency of Imo State.
The claimant also reserved the right to call additional witnesses as the proceedings unfold.
In his witness statement on oath, Mr Gbajabiamila stated that his decision to institute the suit was driven by the gravity of the allegations and their potential impact on both his personal reputation and the public office he occupies.
He described himself as a legal practitioner who has spent decades in public service, serving successively as a member of the House of Representatives, Majority Leader, Speaker of the House and now Chief of Staff to the President.
According to him, that record was built over many years through integrity, transparency and respect for the rule of law, making the allegations particularly damaging.
He told the court that the publications attracted widespread attention across conventional and social media, leading to calls and enquiries from political associates, colleagues, friends and members of the public both within and outside Nigeria.
The claimant maintained that the allegations not only questioned his integrity but also undermined public confidence in the Office of the Chief of Staff to the President.
Separate witness statements filed by Messrs Abdel-Majid and Nwawuba broadly supported the claimant’s position.
Mr Abdel-Majid told the court that he worked closely with Mr Gbajabiamila throughout their years in the House of Representatives and had always regarded him as a person of integrity and honour.
He said he was shocked when he came across the allegations and initially found them difficult to reconcile with the claimant’s character. However, because of the extensive publicity the claims received, he became concerned about the possible effect they could have on public perception and even hesitated to publicly associate with Mr Gbajabiamila until the allegations were clarified.
Similarly, Mr Nwawuba noted that he had known and worked with the claimant for several years in the National Assembly and had never known him to be associated with corruption, bribery or abuse of office.
He told the court that although the allegations were inconsistent with the character of the man he knew, their repeated publication created uncertainty and raised concerns about Mr Gbajabiamila’s credibility until the issues could be judicially determined.
The claimant also intends to rely on an extensive body of documentary and electronic evidence during the trial.
According to the court filings, the evidence includes audio and video recordings of Mr Adeyemi’s press conference of 25 June; transcripts and recordings of his interviews with VeryDarkMan, and Channels Television’s Politics Today; newspaper reports; television broadcasts; online publications; social media posts; the cease-and-desist letter dated 6 July and evidence of its publication in national newspapers; as well as a certified true copy of the criminal charge pending against Mr Adeyemi before the Federal High Court.
The claimant argued that these materials demonstrate a continuous publication of the allegedly defamatory statements despite repeated demands for their withdrawal.
He further contended that the documentary evidence would show that the allegations were published widely across multiple media platforms, thereby amplifying their impact on his reputation and exposing him to public ridicule.
Prayers
In the suit, Mr Gbajabiamila is asking the court to declare that the statements made by Mr Adeyemi during his 25 June press conference, together with their subsequent publication and republication across traditional, online and social media platforms, were false, malicious and defamatory.
He is also seeking a declaration that the publications unlawfully injured his reputation and lowered him in the estimation of right-thinking members of society by portraying him as a corrupt public official who demanded and received bribes, abused the powers of his office and interfered with law enforcement agencies.
Beyond the declaratory reliefs, the claimant is asking the court to compel Mr Adeyemi to publish an unconditional retraction and apology, in terms to be approved by the court, in five national newspapers within seven days of the delivery of judgment.
He is further requesting an order directing the defendant to publish the same apology on every social media platform, website and online channel through which the allegations were circulated and to keep the publication visible for at least 30 consecutive days.
Mr Gbajabiamila also wants the court to order the defendant to remove all videos, recordings, transcripts, social media posts and every other publication containing the alleged defamatory statements from all platforms under his control.
In addition, he is seeking a perpetual injunction restraining Mr Adeyemi, his agents, privies or associates from making, repeating or republishing the same or similar allegations in the future.
The claimant is asking the court to award N10 billion in general damages and N5 billion in aggravated damages, both of which he said should be paid to charities of his choice.
He is also seeking N200 million as the cost of the suit, together with post-judgment interest at the rate of 10 per cent per annum until the judgment debt is fully paid.
As of the time of filing this report, no date had been fixed for the hearing of the case.
