Femi Gbajabiamila sues Adeniyi Adeyemi for N15bn over fake PFIPC bribery claims
Chief of Staff to the President Femi Gbajabiamila has filed a N15 billion defamation lawsuit against Adeniyi Adeyemi, who allegedly operated a fake Presidential Foreign Investment Promotion Council (PFIPC). The suit was filed Wednesday, July 15, 2026 at the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja.
Gbajabiamila accuses Adeyemi of demanding a 48 percent kickback from a N27.3 billion take-off grant supposedly approved for the fake agency. He claims Adeyemi already collected N400 million through a proxy and later demanded another N200 million to facilitate presidential approvals.
The lawsuit comes nine days after Gbajabiamila's cease-and-desist letter dated July 6, which Adeyemi allegedly ignored. Gbajabiamila is seeking N10 billion in general damages and N5 billion in aggravated damages, plus N200 million for court costs. He wants Adeyemi to publish retractions in five national newspapers and on all social media platforms where the allegations appeared for 30 consecutive days.
Beyond the financial claims, Adeyemi accused Gbajabiamila of using his office to manipulate security agencies, interfere with investigations, intimidate media, and shield himself from accountability. He also claimed the late Babatunde Tanimola served as intermediary and died suspiciously in a hotel fire on October 22, 2025, and that he survived an assassination attempt on the Abuja-Kaduna Expressway in September 2025.
Gbajabiamila denies ever meeting or communicating with Adeyemi, denying all financial allegations and knowledge of Tanimola. Adeyemi is currently facing criminal charges for forgery of presidential documents (FHC/ABJ/CR/652/2026) and was arrested in Osun State after missing court. Gbajabiamila will testify in the defamation trial and has listed former House members Adekoya Adesegun Abdel-Majid and Henry Nwawuba as witnesses.
Will N15 billion in damages adequately address the reputational damage from these serious corruption allegations, or should the court consider additional measures to restore public trust in the Office of the Chief of Staff?