“THE PHANTOM COUNCIL TEST”: TGF WARNS AGAINST SACRIFICING LAW FOR OUTRAGE, BACKS CHIEF OF STAFF
GREATRIBUNETVMEWS –THE Transformative Governance Forum has entered the PFIPC debate, calling calls for the Chief of Staff’s resignation premature, and urging Nigeria to let institutions — not mob consensus — decide.
Public anger is loud. But TGF says the Constitution must be louder.
Bottom Line:
For TGF, this isn’t about defending a person. It’s about defending process. The PFIPC scandal, they argue, is a test of institutions — not a license to break them.
The Key Issues, In Full Quotations:
1. TGF’s Position on the Resignation Push
“TGF says calls for the Chief of Staff’s resignation miss the point, insists a loud consensus is not the same thing as a correct one”
2. Entry Into The PFIPC Debate
“The Transformative Governance Forum (TGF) has waded into the raging national debate over the Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council, PFIPC, scandal, arguing that the clamour for the resignation of the Chief of Staff to the President is legally premature and constitutionally unsound.”
3. The Proverb That Sets The Tone
“In a statement issued by its Strategic Communications Directorate, the Forum opened with an old African proverb, which it said captured the moment precisely: that it is the storm which reveals which tree has strong roots, and which one had only borrowed its green leaves.”
According to the Forum, a man calling himself the Director-General of PFIPC is alleged to have forged a letter of appointment bearing the name of the Chief of Staff, Rt. Hon. Femi Gbajabiamila, and used it to open a Central Bank of Nigeria account and thirty four commercial bank accounts, host foreign diplomats, obtain recruitment waivers, and secure a place for his fictitious agency in the 2026 Appropriation Act, with an allocation of roughly ₦1.3 billion. The accused, Prince Adeniyi Adeyemi Matthew, is standing trial before the Federal High Court on an eight count charge of forgery, impersonation, and obtaining by false pretence, with the federal government expected to call several witnesses, including the Chief of Staff, once proceedings advance.
The Forum acknowledged that the episode has become a political flashpoint, noting that the Nigeria Democratic Congress, the African Democratic Congress, Chief Femi Falana SAN, and former Vice President Atiku Abubakar have all called for an independent probe, with some demanding the Chief of Staff’s resignation. TGF was careful to describe these as legitimate democratic voices that ought not to be dismissed. Nigerians, the statement said, are entitled to ask how a fictitious agency travelled so deep into the machinery of government. In the Forum’s view, however, a mature democracy must be able to hold two ideas at once: that a wrong occurred, and that establishing responsibility for it must follow the law rather than the volume of public sentiment.
The Forum was blunt in its assessment of the dominant public mood. The prescription on offer from several commentators, it argued, amounts to a simple demand: remove the Chief of Staff, extract a public apology, and move on. TGF conceded that this is a satisfying answer, but maintained that it is premature, procedurally unsound, and unlikely to establish who is actually responsible. Adopted as policy, the statement warned, it would entrench the very mischief it claims to resolve.
A Familiar Vulnerability, Not a Nigerian Peculiarity
Stripped of its politics, TGF said, the underlying mechanism at play is neither exotic nor uniquely Nigerian. A letter purporting to carry the authority of the Chief of Staff was used to establish what appears to have been a phantom federal agency, complete with a budget line, until other agencies noticed the irregularity and raised the alarm with the Secretary to the Government of the Federation and the Chief of Staff himself. That is where the scheme unravelled.
That sequence, the Forum insisted, deserves emphasis. It is not evidence of complicity at the top, TGF argued, but evidence of a process that caught itself before greater damage was done. The officials and agencies who had the fortitude to raise the alarm, the statement added, ought to be commended rather than treated with suspicion by association. That the alarm reached those offices at all, the Forum concluded, is proof on its own terms that the coordination architecture of government still functions.
Two further observations were offered before judgment is passed, according to the statement. First, TGF noted, anyone familiar with how government offices operate in Abuja knows the general rule: a letter from the Office of the Chief of Staff, or its equivalent in any presidential system, is one of the most consequential pieces of paper in government, capable of securing office space, opening a Central Bank account, and, given patience and timing, even a budget line. This, the Forum was careful to stress, is not a mark of a corrupted system but simply how a system built on hierarchical trust functions, which explains why that particular office is a natural target for forgery. Even in Washington, the statement observed, second guessing a letter attributed to a senior aide close to the President is understood to carry real professional risk for the civil servant who does so.
Second, the Forum argued, a sufficiently determined forger can produce a document capable of defeating a routine forensic check in the overwhelming majority of cases, and some observers have reasonably suggested that operations of this kind are occasionally assisted by external actors running deliberate deception campaigns, a phenomenon well documented in capitals around the world. None of this excuses what happened, TGF was quick to clarify. It simply reflects how bureaucracies built on trust function, and trust, the statement noted, is precisely what fraud is designed to exploit. The only truly reliable safeguards, in the Forum’s assessment, are a direct verification call to the purported signatory or a functioning digital authentication system, and until such a system is fully operational, the risk of forgery will persist.
That the Nigerian Investment Promotion Commission and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs identified the irregularity, and that their concerns reached the Chief of Staff and the security services promptly, is not evidence of institutional failure, the Forum maintained. It is evidence, TGF said, that the system, however imperfect, remains capable of correcting itself. The presumption of administrative regularity exists in every system of executive government, the statement noted, and the relevant question is not whether fraud can occur, since it can and does everywhere, but whether it is caught. In this instance, the Forum concluded, it was.
The Case for Due Process
TGF stated that it respectfully disagrees with calls for the Chief of Staff’s resignation or removal, not because his office should be exempt from scrutiny, but because of what constitutional and natural justice require. The Nigerian Constitution, the Forum pointed out, guarantees every citizen, regardless of office, the right to fair hearing and the presumption of innocence until a competent court rules otherwise. On the facts currently in the public domain, the statement said, Mr Gbajabiamila is the complainant, having petitioned the Department of State Services and the Nigeria Police in October 2025, well before the matter became public knowledge.
To remove a public officer on the strength of allegations made by a fraud suspect, before any court has made a finding, would punish the whistle rather than the wrongdoer, the Forum argued. It would also establish an unwelcome precedent, TGF warned, that the most effective route to removing an official is not evidence but a sufficiently well organised media campaign. This, the statement added, is not a uniquely Nigerian dilemma, since senior aides close to the seat of power in presidential systems generally wield an authority that ordinary administrative channels do not carry. The appropriate response to impersonation of that authority, in the Forum’s view, is not automatic removal of the officeholder, but a strengthening of the verification systems around the office itself. The Federal High Court, TGF concluded, should be allowed to establish the legal facts, and the defence should be free to make its case through every legitimate channel, including the press, with Nigerians left to follow the process and reach their own conclusions.
Giving Credit Where It Is Due
Any honest account of this matter, the Forum insisted, must also acknowledge what the PBAT administration has done well. Since 2023, TGF said, the Renewed Hope Agenda has pursued fiscal transparency more consistently than most of its predecessors, from the consolidation of Treasury Single Account operations to the ongoing strengthening of the Integrated Payroll and Personnel Information System. It is precisely because agencies such as the Nigerian Investment Promotion Commission and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs now operate within a culture of expected scrutiny, according to the Forum, that PFIPC’s activities were identified at all. The Chief of Staff’s decision to petition the DSS and the Police in October 2025, rather than manage the matter quietly, the statement said, is worth recognising rather than treating with suspicion, since a government intent on concealing a scandal does not refer it to law enforcement months before the public becomes aware of it.
This is not to suggest the administration has no questions left to answer, the Forum was careful to add. It plainly does. How a non existent council secured a place in the 2026 Appropriation Act, how a recruitment waiver for three hundred staff was approved through the Office of the Head of the Civil Service of the Federation, and how thirty five accounts, including one with the Central Bank, were opened in the name of a fictitious entity, are all matters warranting full administrative and legislative scrutiny, the statement noted. TGF’s position, according to the Forum, is not that these questions should be set aside, but that the answers should come from investigation and due process, not from a pre-emptive dismissal that satisfies public anger while leaving the underlying vulnerability unaddressed.
Closing the Gaps: What Other Jurisdictions Do
Nigeria, the Forum observed, is far from the only country to discover that paper based trust is fragile in a digital age, and it pointed to several jurisdictions it said offer instructive models. The United States, TGF noted, requires federal officials to authenticate identity and authority through Personal Identity Verification credentials and layered digital signature protocols, rather than relying on a signed letter alone.
Singapore’s GeBIZ procurement portal and the United Kingdom’s Government Digital Service, the statement said, publish appointments and authorisations on tamper evident digital registries in real time, allowing banks, ministries, and foreign missions to verify claims instantly rather than taking a letterhead at face value.
Estonia’s X-Road platform, according to the Forum, performs a similar function, allowing any government agency or bank to verify a signature and its underlying authority as a transaction occurs, which renders a forged paper letter largely useless.
The Financial Action Task Force’s Customer Due Diligence standards, TGF added, require banks to confirm the legal existence of an entity before opening an account in its name, a standard it said the Central Bank of Nigeria ought to apply without exception to government sounding entities.
The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s Best Practices for Budget Transparency, the Forum concluded, similarly insist that no entity should receive a budget allocation unless it can be traced to a specific enabling instrument, whether an Act, an Executive Order, or a Presidential directive.
Nigeria, TGF said, already possesses the foundations needed to build a comparable system, in the form of the Treasury Single Account, IPPIS, and the Bank Verification Number regime. What is missing, the Forum argued, is a single, authoritative registry of federal agencies, cross checked by the Budget Office of the Federation, the Office of the Head of the Civil Service, and the Central Bank, against which every new budget line and every new account can be verified before it is honoured.
What the National Assembly Must Also Do
It bears restating, the Forum said, that the federal budget is, in the first instance, an Act of the National Assembly. If a fictitious agency found its way into that Act, TGF argued, the National Assembly’s own appropriation process shares responsibility for the failure, alongside the executive agencies that prepared the estimates. A budget line for a phantom agency, the statement explained, can only take effect if it passes through two gates, the executive’s Budget Office and the National Assembly’s appropriations committees, and if the line was passed, at least one of those gates did not perform its function. Directing attention solely toward an office several steps removed from the Budget Office, the Forum said, does not address that failure. It obscures it.
Calls for the Chief of Staff’s resignation, TGF argued, largely bypass this dimension of the story. They are politically convenient, the statement said, but they shift scrutiny upward and away from where constitutional responsibility for the budget actually resides. The Forum therefore called on the Senate and House Committees on Appropriations, working with the Fiscal Responsibility Commission, to undertake a candid internal review of how budget lines are proposed, defended, and passed, and to make their findings public, adding that accountability which points only outward, and never inward, falls short of the standard the public is entitled to expect.
The Bottom Line
The PFIPC affair, the Forum concluded, is not simply a fraud story but a stress test of Nigeria’s institutions, and stress tests exist to reveal where the structural weaknesses lie. That the scheme was exposed, that agencies raised objections, that law enforcement acted, and that the matter is now before the courts, TGF said, indicates that the underlying institutional defences, while imperfect, continue to function. What the moment calls for, in the Forum’s words, is not an extended public uproar, nor the removal of an official on the strength of accusation alone, but the more difficult and less immediately satisfying work of reform: verify before extending trust, confirm before releasing funds, and allow the courts, rather than public sentiment, to determine guilt.
TGF said it stands behind the Renewed Hope Agenda’s commitment to transparency, and stands equally firmly on the principle that due process, for the Chief of Staff, for the accused, and for every Nigerian, is not negotiable. The Forum stated that it has no interest in the pursuit of scapegoats, only in institutions that function as intended, which requires resisting the immediate appeal of blame in favour of the more exacting task of making the system harder to deceive. The judiciary, TGF said, should establish the legal facts. The National Assembly should examine its own procedures. The executive should reinforce its verification systems. And the public, the Forum urged, would do well to await the evidence before reaching a verdict.
That, in the Forum’s closing assessment, is how a constitutional democracy is meant to function. Process, TGF said, is not an obstacle to justice but the mechanism through which justice is properly reached. The statement closed, as it began, with a proverb: that patience is not the ability to wait, but the ability to keep a good attitude while waiting for the truth to be fully known.
Issued by the Strategic Communications Directorate, Transformative Governance Forum, Abuja, 4 July 2026.
Governance. Service. Transformation.
About the Author
