By Yusuf Danjuma Yunusa

The Presidency on Wednesday gave a detailed account of how it alleged that Adeniyi Adeyemi Matthew created and operated a fictitious federal government agency, occupied office space at the Federal Secretariat in Abuja, convened meetings with foreign ambassadors and allegedly forged presidential appointment documents to sustain what it described as an elaborate scam.

The account was contained in a statement issued by the Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, Bayo Onanuga, in response to renewed public interest surrounding Adeyemi’s claim that he was appointed Director-General of a so-called Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council, also referred to as the Presidential Economic Advisory Council.

According to the Presidency, “no such agency exists within the Federal Government, while the Office of the Chief of Staff to the President never issued any appointment letter to Adeyemi.”

The statement said the alleged fraud first came to light after officials of the Nigerian Investment Promotion Council, NIPC, alerted the Presidency that another organisation was operating as though it were a federal agency with overlapping responsibilities. Investigations, according to the statement, revealed that Adeyemi had allegedly established an office on the second floor of the Federal Secretariat Complex Phase III in Abuja, from where he presented himself as Director-General of the fictitious council.

The Presidency alleged that he and his associates held meetings with foreign diplomats and Nigerian stakeholders while claiming to represent the Federal Government. One of such meetings, it said, was held on October 10, 2025, at the Wells Carlton Hotel and Apartments in Asokoro, Abuja, where Adeyemi reportedly “summoned ambassadors without the knowledge or approval of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.”

The ministry was said to have raised the alarm in a letter dated October 15, 2025, describing the meeting as “a violation of established diplomatic procedures” and requesting clarification from both the Office of the National Security Adviser and the Office of the Chief of Staff.

The Presidency said the Chief of Staff had already petitioned the Department of State Services, DSS, and the Nigeria Police Force on October 17, 2025, after discovering that “forged appointment letters bearing fake signatures, official seals and reference numbers were being used to legitimise the fake agency.”

According to the statement, the petition also informed security agencies that Adeyemi had requested the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to issue a diplomatic note verbale to facilitate United States visas for himself and members of his purported staff. The Presidency said copies of the forged appointment letter, the visa request documents and photographs obtained from the fake agency’s website were attached to the petition submitted to security agencies.

It further disclosed that after receiving enquiries from various government institutions regarding Adeyemi’s status, the Chief of Staff repeatedly informed both the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Office of the Secretary to the Government of the Federation that “neither Adeyemi nor the purported council was recognised by the Presidency.”

The statement stressed that “the Office of the Chief of Staff neither creates government agencies nor issues appointment letters, noting that such responsibilities fall within the constitutional mandate of the Office of the Secretary to the Government of the Federation.”

Following the petition, police investigators arrested Adeyemi on October 27, 2025, at the Federal Secretariat office where he allegedly operated the fake agency. Searches conducted at both the office and his residence in Suleja reportedly yielded forged documents and other exhibits.

According to the Presidency, Adeyemi admitted during interrogation that one Dolapo Babatunde Tanimola assisted him in procuring the forged appointment letter. However, police investigations later established that “Tanimola had died in a hotel fire in Abuja five days before Adeyemi’s arrest.”

The statement said investigators concluded that “the agency was entirely fictitious and that Adeyemi allegedly forged official documents, falsely presented himself as a presidential appointee and sought diplomatic privileges reserved for legitimate government officials.”

The Presidency further claimed that investigators discovered 34 bank accounts linked to Adeyemi, including nine allegedly opened in the names of fictitious government agencies. It also alleged that he “fraudulently secured a Central Bank of Nigeria account by misleading the Office of the Accountant-general of the Federation, although investigators confirmed no public funds were paid into the account.

By Yusuf Danjuma Yunusa

The World Bank has marked five states to receive a combined $15 million in performance-based incentives under the World Bank-supported HOPE Governance Programme after emerging as the best-performing states in the implementation of key education and healthcare reforms.

The National Coordinator of the HOPE Governance Programme, Assad Hassan, disclosed this on Tuesday in Abuja during a retreat for commissioners, permanent secretaries and directors of budget and planning from the 36 states and the Federal Capital Territory.

This was contained in a statement issued on Tuesday by the Communications Officer of the HOPE Governance Programme, Joe Mutah.

The programme, domiciled in the Federal Ministry of Budget and Economic Planning, approved a total of $27 million in incentives for states that successfully achieved the Year Zero Disbursement-Linked Results under the programme.

The incentives are based on the findings and recommendations of the Interim Independent Verification Agent, which assessed states’ performance in meeting the programme’s Disbursement-Linked Indicators.

The statement read, “The World Bank-supported HOPE Governance Programme, domiciled in the Federal Ministry of Budget and Economic Planning, is set to disburse $27 million as performance-based incentives to states that successfully achieved the Year Zero Disbursement-Linked Results.”

A breakdown of the incentives showed that Bayelsa, Borno, Kano, Kebbi and Yobe states emerged as the biggest beneficiaries.

The five states will receive $1.5 million each for meeting the requirements under Disbursement-Linked Result (DLR) 2.1, which focuses on the adoption of comprehensive guidelines for the preparation and submission of consolidated work plans for state basic education budgets.

The same five states also qualified for another $1.5 million each under Disbursement-Linked Result (DLR) 2.2, which measures the adoption of comprehensive guidelines for the preparation and submission of consolidated work plans for state primary healthcare budgets.

Together, the five states are expected to receive $15 million from the two indicators alone.

Under Disbursement-Linked Result (DLR) 2.3, which centres on the adoption of harmonised budget guidelines and a chart of accounts by local governments, Adamawa, Bayelsa, Borno, Delta, Gombe, Kano, Plateau, Taraba and Yobe states qualified for incentives of $500,000 each.

Similarly, under Disbursement-Linked Result (DLR) 4.1, which focuses on the publication of the 2025 Citizens Budget for basic education and primary healthcare by February 28, 2025, 15 states qualified for incentives.

The states are Abia, Bayelsa, Borno, Edo, Ekiti, Enugu, Imo, Jigawa, Kano, Kebbi, Kogi, Nasarawa, Ondo, Plateau and Yobe.

Each of the states will receive $500,000.

Explaining the basis for the disbursement, Hassan said only states that met the stipulated conditions within the specified timelines qualified for the incentives.

The statement noted: “The incentives are based on the findings and recommendations of the Interim Independent Verification Agent, which carried out a rigorous assessment of states’ performances against the Year Zero Disbursement-Linked Indicators.

“For DLR 2.1 and DLR 2.2, Bayelsa, Borno, Kano, Kebbi and Yobe states met all the requirements and are therefore eligible to receive $1.5 million each for both indicators.

“For DLR 2.3, nine states successfully adopted harmonised budget guidelines and a chart of accounts for local governments and will receive $500,000 each.

“Also, under DLR 4.1, 15 states met the conditions relating to the publication of the Financial Year 2025 Citizens Budget for basic education and primary healthcare and will equally receive $500,000 each.”

He added that many participating states failed to qualify for the incentives because they either missed the stipulated deadlines or failed to meet the programme’s requirements.

“Other participating states were not eligible for the incentives because they either published the required guidelines after the March 31, 2025 deadline, failed to meet most of the stipulated criteria, or did not publish the required results on their official state websites,” he said.

The coordinator identified weak institutional coordination as one of the major factors responsible for the poor performance recorded by some states.

By Yusuf Danjuma Yunusa

The Court of Appeal in Abuja has reserved judgment in two separate appeals over dispute surrounding the timetable for the conduct of the 2027 elections released by the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC.

A three-member justices of the appellate court, in a judgment delivered by Justice Adebukola Bankole on Wednesday, held that judgments would be reserved in the appeals.

According to her, the date of the judgement will be communicated to parties in the appeal.

Two political parties, Youth Party of Nigeria, YPN, and Social Democratic Party, SDP, had approached two Federal High Courts in Abuja, to nullify the timetable released for the 2027 elections by INEC.

While Justice Mohammed Umar of the Federal High Court granted the reliefs sought in the suit by YPN and nullified the election guidelines by INEC, Justice James Omotosho, in the suit filed by SDP, granted some reliefs in favour of the party and some others in favour of the electoral umpire.

Not satisfied by the two judgements, INEC approached the Court of Appeal to set aside the judgment of Justice Umar and part of the judgment of Justice Omotosho which limited INEC’s power regarding the conduct of elections.

During the hearing of the appeals, Dr Alex Izinyon, SAN, led two other SANs, from INEC to argued the appeals.

Izinyon, in his submission before the appellate court contended that INEC had the power as provided by the law under the provisions of the 1999 Constitution and the Electoral Act to issue guidelines for the elections.

“The constitution, specifically, empowered INEC to organise, supervise and undertake elections and other political activities as provided and that the timetable provided is in consonance with the power donated by the 1999 Constitution and the enabling act for INEC to do what it did in issuing elections timetables.

“The trial court erred in law because it failed to interpret, using the Supreme Court authorities and Court of Appeal decisions on the power already donated by the 1999 Constitution to INEC to arrange for elections including pre-election matters.

“Supreme Court and Court of Appeal have held that INEC has the power to organise and supervise elections and this include timetable for elections to carry out political activities preceeding the elections.

“The trial court failed to give effect to the phrase ‘not later than 120 days and not more than 90 days’, which was a subject of contention at the trial court.

“And that not less than 120 days means it should not be more than but it can be less than but for the court to say that it must be exactly 120 days, was too mathematical and not the intendment of the lawmakers as any of the activities can be done before the 120 days and not more than.

“For the trial court to say it must be exactly 120 days is a mechanical application of the statue which is contrary to the decisions of the apex court and the Court of Appeal,” he said.

He said the same goes for the 90-day provisions, adding that the reliefs sought by the respondents at the trial court were declarative in nature.

“There was no evidence by way of affidavit to show that they have commenced any primary or taken steps or that they have suffered any injury..

“Therefore the court ought not to have granted any relief,” the senior lawyer said.

Izinyon said the second appeal was filed by SDP and the judgment delivered by Justice Omotosho, who granted some reliefs to the SDP and granted some also to the INEC.

“INEC appealed part of the judgement in that case which limits their powers by saying that the days were short by few numbers of days that INEC should go back and rectify this,” he added.

Before the main appeal was argued, Izinyon moved three applications.

One of applications prayed the court to close the door against YPN on the ground that the party failed to file its respondent brief after service of the appellant briefs on them five days earlier.

He argued that the court should hold that they had no written briefs in opposition to the appellant’s briefs as they are prohibited by paragraph 13 of the practice direction of the pre-election proceedings issued by the President of the Court of Appeal.

He said the rule states that no time shall be extended for default under the same paragraph.

The YPN’s counsel, Akinwale Irokosun, when asked by the panel, if the party filed any response to the motion, answered in the negative.

The lead counsel later moved his application and the court reserved ruling to be delivered alongside the main appeal.

Izinyon equally opposed the motion by Irokosun, praying the court to grant them an extension of time to file their respondent brief.

He argued that there was no extension of time to file respondent brief when the time provided by the rules had elapsed.