PFIPC: The Limits of Matthew’s Allegations

The Advocate By Onikepo Braithwaite Onikepo.braithwaite@thisdaylive.com The Advocate By Onikepo Braithwaite Onikepo.braithwaite@thisdaylive.com The NBA Elections and Issues of Credibility The red flags concerning the NBA elections were already obvious, and I certainly raised them prior to the elections in my piece of 16/6/26 “NBA Elections: That Candidates May Win ‘Fair and Square’ ”. That the company, Mikrodigital Connect selected to conduct the electronic voting was not only low on corporate governance, but had no track record of competence, while there were no public records of registration with NDPC of the other company, Thanelinc, selected as Data Protector. So, that the platform crashed at the beginning of the process and didn’t work seamlessly and efficiently, is no surprise. All I advocated for, was an outcome where, win or lose, participants would be satisfied that the process was fair. Instead, candidates and Lawyers alike, are complaining. Many are complaining that they couldn’t vote. As for me, I don’t think I voted. After several attempts, I received my OTP, made my selections, but when I submitted my choices, the system seemed unresponsive and I didn’t receive any acknowledgment/email that I had voted successfully. I couldn’t get back into the system. In short, I didn’t /couldn’t vote. Voice of Reason I like to think that my voice is sometimes a voice of reason, when there are debates on matters of public interest. Such a voice is necessary to bring clarity to the issues for determination, because the Nigerian court of public opinion usually delivers its judgement based on who may be more popular; ethnicity; religion; emotions; who they perceive to be the underdog, particularly if Government is involved and Government isn’t in their good books; on who has the loudest voice in a situation and speaks first, and not necessarily whether the voice is correct or truthful; and sometimes, on outrightly false information or allegations. Just as crowds are quick to deliver mob justice and physically lynch the innocent, as was done to late 74 year old Mrs Bridget Agbahime in Kano in 2016 over false allegations of blasphemy against Islam, so also does the court of public opinion indulge in reputational lynching, without ample evidence. Court of Law vs Court of Public Opinion The court of public opinion delivers their judgement many a time, not based on the elements of a good judgement that a court of law is mandated to deploy – most importantly, fair hearing of the parties involved – see Section 36(1) of the Constitution – this principle of fair hearing should apply, even in the informal court of public opinion. In Nwokoro & Ors v Ashue (2023) LPELR-59744(SC) per Adamu Jauro, JSC, the Supreme Court held thus: “…Irrespective of the style adopted however, the following essential components are expected to be situated somewhere in every good judgement: 1. Introduction of issues between the parties. 2. Cases of either side to the litigation going by the pleadings/processes. 3. Evidence adduced by either side. 4. Resolution of the issues of fact and law. 5. The Court’s decision and reasons for arriving at the decision”. The law obviously plays little or no role, in the court of public opinion’s decision making process, only when it favours them. So, for example, people strongly cite their right to freedom of expression donated by Section 39(1) of the Constitution, but do not cite Section 45 which limits that freedom with laws such as the Cybercrimes Act and Criminal Defamation Laws which exist in various States, and the FCT (see the Penal Code Act). This month, in Ghana, a female Tik Toker, Camilla Alhassan was convicted and sentenced to one year imprisonment by the Accra Circuit Court 1, for making false claims that President John Mahama sacrificed 32 cows to gain political power, and that the Ghanaian Government’s distribution of sanitary pads to flood victims was a cover-up. She pleaded guilty. Her actions breached Section 208(1) of Ghana’s Criminal Code Act 1960 (Act 29) which provides thus: “Any person who publishes or reproduces any statement, rumour, or report which is likely to cause fear and alarm to the public or to disturb the public peace knowing or having reason to believe that the statement, rumour or report is false is guilty of a misdemeanour”. Claiming ignorance that the statement or rumour is false is no defence, unless there is evidence to show that prior to publication, the perpetrator took reasonable measures to verify the accuracy (see Section 208(2) thereof). This defence would obviously not be available to a Defendant, who is the originator and ‘disseminator’ of a false story. Unfortunately, the rational way of decision-making, is not always followed by the courts themselves, let alone the court of public opinion that usually delivers its judgement akin to a lynch mob – they collectively accuse, pursue, take on the role of judge and jury, and deliver their verdict based on misinformation, rumours, unconfirmed accusations and social media. This can be destructive. Matthew appears to lack integrity, while his testimony is contradictory, indicating a lack of credibility, Recently, Malama Ummulkhair, an Islamic Teacher who was reported to have lost her way somewhere in Kaduna while trying to locate the venue of an Islamic lecture, asked some children for directions; the children may have been frightened, and were reported to have started shouting that she was a kidnapper, and the rumour immediately spread like wild fire. Possibly, she was wearing a hijab, the way she appears in her photos in the news. Without any proof, she was attacked, despite the fact that the Imam whose lecture she was attending, confirmed that he knew her. The Police were reported to have rescued her from the attack, and took her into protective custody for her own safety. Nevertheless, based on an unconfirmed rumour started by children, the crowd stormed the Police Station, dragged Malama Ummulkhair out and burnt her to death. Numerous arrests have been made, but that won’t bring Malama Ummulkhair back to her family. Her vicious murder based on a rumour, and judgement delivered by the court of public opinion, sentence carried out via mob justice or rather, injustice, is permanent. May Allah comfort those she left behind. Amen. Most importantly, those who murdered Malama Ummulkhair, must face the full wrath of the law. It is undeniable that there have been kidnappings, too many to enumerate, many of them carried out by so-called Muslims falsely in the name of Islam, and more for financial benefit, but that certainly doesn’t mean every Muslim must be suspected, and without reasonable cause for that matter. And, even if there’s reasonable cause in a situation, the public must learn to exercise restraint, and let the law take its course. Similarly, because Nigerians have witnessed all sorts of corruption from successive governments, including the Tinubu administration, doesn’t mean that every single allegation against the Government or its officials, must be true. A proper investigation is always necessary, and a one-sided narrative pushed by social media doesn’t qualify as a proper investigation. The Presidential Foreign Investment Promotion Council Saga In the last few days, Nigerians have followed the debates about one possibly self-styled ‘Prince’ Adeniyi Adeyemi Matthew and his allegedly fake agency, the Presidential Foreign Investment Promotion Council (PFIPC), where in exercising his own right to freedom of expression, his statements have directly impugned on Chief of Staff to the President, Rt. Hon. Femi Gbajabiamila’s right to respect for his dignity protected by Section 34(1) of the Constitution (and his reputation). Before we go into Matthew’s main allegation against Hon. Gbajabiamila, it’s apposite to examine the integrity and credibility of Matthew, from what we know about him. I saw an online writeup that exposes Matthew as one with a penchant for fraudulent misrepresentation, who has moved from scam to scam. In 2016, he paraded himself as an Ambassador and President-General of the World Youth Organisation, which he claimed was affiliated with the United Nations (UN). The UN publicly denied this, and any affiliation with Matthew or his fake agency. Matthew was also sacked from his job with the Osun State Government, for fraudulent activities. As a Lawyer, this would be the first red flag for me – the credibility of Matthew, which from the foregoing, appears to be almost zero. And, in litigation/dispute resolution, when the disposition of a party or witness in a case is that of a liar or unreliable, not much weight can be attached to the evidence such person gives. In Onuoha & Ors v State (1989) LPELR-2704(SC) per Chukwudifu Akunne Oputa, JSC, the Apex Court held thus: “…there are many hallowed and time honoured factors to be considered when dealing with the question of veracity and credibility of a witness and prominent among these are:- 1. His knowledge of the facts to which he testifies 2. His disinterestedness 3. His integrity 4. Whether the evidence is contradictory or is contradicted by the surrounding circumstance…..There is no magic in the words ‘I believe’ or ‘I do not believe.” These words will not and cannot turn an apparent falsehood into truth and vice versa. Belief and disbelief should really represent a fair and impartial appraisal of all the facts and surrounding circumstances of any given case”. Matthew appears to lack integrity, while his testimony is contradictory, indicating a lack of credibility. Sometime in October 2025, Hon. Gbajabiamila stated that the NIPC brought to his attention the existence of the PFIPC, seeing as there may have been an overlap between their roles. Hon. Gbajabiamila reported the matter to the Police and DSS for their investigation, based upon which Matthew was arrested and detained for about 3 weeks. As a Lawyer, the second red flag for me would be, why report something to the law enforcement agencies, if I will be implicating myself, if truly, I’m involved in the scam? After all, even when arrested, a suspect has the constitutional right to remain silent and not to implicate themselves! See Section 6(2)(a) of ACJA 2015. In June, 2026, Matthew suddenly alleged that he paid Hon. Gbajabiamila the sum of N400 million in exchange for appointment as Director General of PFIPC, and that the latter demanded an additional N200 million. When Presidential spokesman, Mr Onanuga denounced the purported appointment letter bandied by Matthew as a forgery, as the office of the Secretary to the Government of the Federation (SGF) and not the Chief of Staff to the President, issues appointment letters, also pointing out the difference between the alleged forged letterhead and that of the Presidency, Matthew subsequently, changed his story in an interview with Seun Okinbaloye on Channels TV’s Politics Today, and claimed that the letter from Hon. Gbajabiamila was temporary, to be replaced by one from the SGF, since the Chief of Staff doesn’t issue appointment letters. Why would Hon. Gbajabiamila, a Lawyer by training, issue a letter of appointment that he isn’t empowered to issue, and give it to a third party to publicise and get him into trouble? It doesn’t add up. One would imagine that at this point the public would be more interested in verifying the authenticity of the purported appointment letter and the statements made by Matthew to DSS during his arrest, but, instead, they have chosen to take the word of a person that appears to be unreliable, without tangible evidence. Hon. Gbajabiamila has obviously denied issuing any appointment letter to Matthew. See Onuoha & Ors v State (Supra). It is trite law that he who alleges must prove. The burden of proof lies on Matthew to prove the authenticity of the appointment letter purportedly issued by Hon. Gbajabiamila, and his allegations. I watched Matthew’s interview with popular blogger and justice warrior, VeryDarkMan, and it is obvious that Matthew is changing his story as he goes along. In the video, when he was asked if he had met Hon. Gbajabiamila before, he stated that he had not. He was then asked if he had spoken to him on the telephone. He said Yes. VeryDarkMan then asked whether it was a video call or how could he say conclusively that the person whom he claimed to have spoken to on the telephone, was Hon. Gbajabiamila. He said he couldn’t. But, in the later interview with Seun Okinbaloye, when asked the same question, Matthew changed his response and stated that he knew he was talking to Hon. Gbajabiamila because he saw the number the intermediary, one Tanimola called, and knew that it was Hon. Gbajabiamila’s telephone number. Two different responses to two different people, to the same question! Who is Tanimola? Does/did he exist? Even if he existed, what’s his connection? Pertinent Questions It is obvious that there is something fishy going on with the PFIPC and Government, and there are glaring lapses in governmental processes that this saga has revealed. The question is, why are these lapses being targeted only at Hon. Gbajabiamila? As we have been told, it is the SGF’s Office that issues appointment letters and allocates offices at the Federal Secretariat, why are they not being accused? How were staff employed in a ‘fake’ agency? Which office is responsible for such employments? How was the PFIPC included in the 2026 Appropriation Act with a N1.3 billion allocation, despite Government denouncement? Why aren’t the Budget Office and staff being accused? After all, Hon. Gbajabiamila doesn’t prepare the budget, and the final budget document that is eventually passed to the President for his assent, isn’t the line by line version of the budget. Conclusion Until many of these pertinent questions are answered, it would amount to putting the cart before the horse for anyone, including the court of public opinion, to lay the blame of this saga on Hon Gbajabiamila, based solely on the testimony of untrustworthy witness and/or dislike of Government/Officials.. From my observations, I also see an opportunity seized by some to get Hon. Gbajabiamila out of his position as Chief of Staff to the President, calling for him to step aside based on allegations that point mostly at others. I was out of the country last week. If someone claims that they saw me shooting someone in Lagos last Wednesday, must I step aside from my role as the Advocate and Editor of This Day Lawyer, based on such a nonsensical allegation, because this allegation though baseless, is serious? Even if the shooter looks like my identical twin, should my alibi not be investigated, and my whereabouts ascertained first? Matthew’s freedom of expression is not at large; it is limited by the truth, the law and Hon. Gbajabiamila’s rights – see Section 45(1)(a) & (b) of the Constitution. The court of public opinion should be motivated by the truth, and not by the ‘Crucify him, Crucify him’ syndrome. Nonetheless, Nigerians are eagerly awaiting the responses to the pertinent questions that I have posed.