By Sonnie Ekwowusi
The Presidency’s handlers, it must be said, are not doing a good job. Their failure, negligence or omission in presenting clear, concise, accurate, comprehensive and compelling positions on issues affecting the Presidency continues to diminish the integrity, credibility and image of the nation’s highest office.
It is difficult to understand how professionals employed and paid to project and protect the image of the Presidency could display such a lack of diligence in the discharge of their responsibilities.
Whenever questions arise over the authenticity or handling of an official communication involving the Presidency, it is incumbent upon its handlers to dispel doubts swiftly, decisively and transparently. The unfortunate impression being created is that the Presidency is vulnerable to fraud and manipulation. That is unhealthy for any democratic government.
Take, for example, the abduction of pupils and teachers from three schools in Oriire Local Government Area of Oyo State on May 15, 2026. This singular incident marked a frightening escalation of Nigeria’s insecurity. Armed terrorists stormed the schools in broad daylight, killed at least one teacher and whisked away dozens of children and their teachers into the forests, where they remained in captivity for 56 agonising days.
The incident shattered the long-held belief that the South-West was relatively insulated from the mass school kidnappings that have become tragically common in parts of northern Nigeria.
On July 10, the Federal Government announced that the captives had regained their freedom following what it described as a painstaking, intelligence-led, multi-agency rescue operation involving the military, the Department of State Services (DSS), the police and other security agencies.
According to the government, eight suspected kidnappers were arrested, several others were neutralised and the victims were rescued without collateral damage.
The safe return of the children and their teachers was, without doubt, a welcome relief to their traumatised families and to the nation.
Yet that relief has been accompanied by troubling questions. Were the victims rescued solely through military operations, or were negotiations and ransom payments involved? Conflicting narratives have since emerged.
While some individuals allege that substantial sums were paid to secure the children’s release, the government has consistently maintained that the victims were freed through coordinated security operations. These contradictory accounts have fuelled public scepticism and underscore the need for greater transparency.
Speaking recently on Channels Television, Borno-based youth leader and human rights advocate Ismaila Ibrahim Kaigama asserted that he served as the chief negotiator between the government and the terrorists and that all the videos released during the children’s captivity were produced by him in collaboration with the kidnappers.
He alleged that both the Federal Government and the Oyo State Government paid about ₦5 billion in ransom before the children were released, with the abductors allegedly receiving ₦1.9 billion.
He further claimed that terrorist groups periodically extort money from the government and that the proceeds are allegedly shared among certain government officials, politicians and the terrorists themselves.
Kaigama also claimed that the government and the terrorists had agreed to a 40-day cessation of kidnappings, after which the abductions would allegedly resume. He threatened to release additional evidence if the government denied his allegations.
These are grave allegations touching on national security, terrorism financing and the integrity of the Nigerian state.
They deserve a prompt, clear and unequivocal response from the Presidency. Senator Mohammed Ali Ndume has publicly rejected Kaigama’s claims, stating that he never acted as an intermediary between kidnappers and any government or private individual.
However, he appeared to qualify that denial by admitting that Kaigama had contacted him regarding the kidnappers’ ransom demand.
Similarly, on July 22, 2026, Bayo Onanuga released a letter dated July 6, 2026, purportedly written by President Donald Trump, commending President Bola Tinubu for his decisive leadership in tackling terrorism and insecurity in Nigeria. Significantly, around the same period, the United States announced a 40 per cent reduction in certain assistance programmes to Nigeria, citing the country’s security challenges.
This naturally raises legitimate questions. Why did it take more than two weeks for a letter dated July 6 to be made public? Was there a compelling diplomatic reason for withholding it until July 22? If so, what was that reason?
Equally puzzling is the apparent inconsistency between the alleged commendation and reports that the United States had reduced assistance to Nigeria because of persistent security concerns.
To many observers, these developments appear difficult to reconcile. If Washington considered Nigeria’s security situation sufficiently improved to warrant presidential commendation, why would it simultaneously reduce assistance on account of insecurity? While the two actions may not necessarily be mutually exclusive, the apparent contradiction understandably fuels public scepticism.
The Presidency should appreciate that credibility is not established merely by insisting that a document is genuine. In an era of digital manipulation, misinformation and declining public trust, official assertions must be supported by convincing evidence. Where unnecessary doubts arise, transparency remains the most effective antidote.
It is therefore unsurprising that many Nigerians have called on the Presidency to publish the complete letter as received, including the official White House letterhead, presidential seal, signature and any accompanying diplomatic transmission, subject, of course, to legitimate national security and diplomatic considerations. Such disclosure would go a long way towards settling the controversy and restoring public confidence.
The controversy surrounding the so-called Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council (PFIPC) raises even more troubling questions. The Presidency dismissed renewed claims by Prince Adeyemi Adeniyi Matthew that he had been appointed Director-General of the PFIPC. It described him as an impostor who allegedly forged official government documents, appointment letters and government seals purportedly bearing the signature of the President’s Chief of Staff, Femi Gbajabiamila, and who falsely paraded himself as the Director-General of the PFIPC.
According to Bayo Onanuga, the Office of the Chief of Staff first uncovered the alleged PFIPC scam after receiving complaints from the Nigerian Investment Promotion Commission (NIPC) that another body was operating as a parallel government agency. The Presidency stated that the Chief of Staff petitioned the Department of State Services and the Nigeria Police Force on October 17, 2025, requesting an investigation into what he described as fraudsters and impostors allegedly forging appointment letters purportedly issued from his office.
However, in his defence, Adeyemi maintained that the PFIPC was lawfully established by the government and that he was duly appointed Director-General by the Chief of Staff. He further alleged that he paid ₦400 million to Gbajabiamila to secure the appointment. According to him, their relationship later deteriorated when the Chief of Staff allegedly demanded 48 per cent of the reported ₦1.3 billion allocated to the PFIPC.
Assuming that the Presidency and its spokesman are correct in asserting that the PFIPC is a fictitious institution operated by impostors, it is difficult to comprehend how such an organisation could have conducted extensive multi-billion-naira activities involving the Presidency, the National Assembly and several government ministries since 2025 without the knowledge, approval or complicity of senior government officials.
How did this so-called phantom institution secure office accommodation at the Federal Secretariat in Abuja? How did it open and operate official naira and foreign currency accounts with the Central Bank of Nigeria? How did it correspond officially with ministries and foreign diplomatic missions?
How did it reportedly employ about 300 staff, some allegedly seconded from the Office of the Accountant-General of the Federation? How did it host high-level diplomatic engagements? Most importantly, how did it reportedly secure a ₦1.3 billion allocation in the 2026 Appropriation Act allegedly approved by President Tinubu and the National Assembly?
These are legitimate questions that cannot be dismissed by simply describing one individual as an impostor. Institutions do not become operational merely because one person claims authority. Numerous approvals, verifications, signatures and administrative processes are ordinarily involved.
If a phantom institution truly infiltrated multiple layers of government, then the scandal extends far beyond one alleged fraudster. It would represent one of the most extraordinary failures of governmental oversight in Nigeria’s recent history.
Equally disturbing are reports that Prince Adeyemi had previously faced criminal proceedings over alleged fraudulent dealings involving government institutions. If accurate, Nigerians deserve to know how he allegedly regained access to government circles and acquired sufficient influence to carry out the activities now attributed to him.
The Presidency cannot afford to remain silent or rely solely on blanket denials where serious allegations touching on the integrity of the highest office in the land have been raised. That is why the opposition, lawyers, civil society organisations and former senior government officials have intensified calls for an independent investigation, warning that the scandal has become a test of the Tinubu administration’s commitment to transparency and accountability.
President Tinubu has directed the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) to investigate the PFIPC scandal. That response is necessary, but it is not sufficient. The ICPC suffers from a credibility deficit in the eyes of many Nigerians and could easily be perceived as incapable of impartially investigating senior government officials.
I therefore call for the appointment of a genuinely credible and independent panel to conduct a thorough and transparent inquiry into the scandal.
The Presidency is not an ordinary public office. It is the highest constitutional trust in the land, embodying the authority, dignity and moral conscience of the nation. Whoever occupies that office does so not as its owner but as a trustee for the Nigerian people. That trust demands the highest standards of integrity, transparency and accountability.
The Office of the President is a sacred public trust. It exists to serve the country, not private interests; to inspire confidence, not suspicion; and to exemplify integrity, not invite controversy.
Every occupant of that exalted office must remember that while political power is temporary, the dignity of the Presidency is enduring. It must never be compromised by scandal, perceived conflicts of interest or any undertaking that diminishes public confidence in the nation’s highest office. Character matters in leadership.
For that reason, the Presidency must remain above reproach. It should never become associated with opaque dealings, questionable private interests or arrangements that create the perception that public authority is being deployed for personal or commercial advantage.
Even where no law has been conclusively shown to have been breached, the mere appearance of a conflict between public duty and private interest can seriously erode public confidence in government.
Democratic governance rests not merely on legality but also on legitimacy. Citizens must be assured that access to the Presidency cannot be leveraged for private benefit, commercial ventures or relationships that blur the constitutional distinction between public office and private enterprise.
The Presidency must never become a platform for activities that expose it to allegations of favouritism, influence peddling or conflicts of interest.
History teaches that great democracies are diminished not only by proven corruption but also by the gradual erosion of ethical standards. Institutions lose their moral authority when leaders fail to recognise that public perception matters almost as much as reality.
The Presidency should therefore embrace the highest standards of public accountability. Any controversy touching the office should be met with prompt disclosure, independent scrutiny and an unwavering commitment to the truth.
Public confidence in government is sustained not merely by official pronouncements but by transparency, credibility and openness. Once lost, that confidence is painfully difficult to restore.
CONCLUDED
