Gbajabiamila Sues Adeyemi Matthew for ₦15bn Over Alleged Defamatory Kickback Claims
E-ISSN: 2354-4481
By Ifeanyi Sampson
The Chief of Staff to President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, Femi Gbajabiamila, has instituted a ₦15 billion defamation suit against Prince Adeniyi Adeyemi Matthew at the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Abuja, over allegations that he demanded a 48 per cent kickback from a purported ₦27.3 billion government grant.
The lawsuit marks a significant escalation in the legal dispute between the two parties and follows a series of public allegations made by Matthew, who claimed that Gbajabiamila sought a percentage of a take-off grant allegedly earmarked for the Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council (PFIPC).
However, the Presidency has consistently maintained that no such agency exists within the structure of the Federal Government, describing the claims as entirely false and misleading.
In the suit filed before the FCT High Court, Gbajabiamila, through his legal counsel, Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Kemi Pinheiro, described the allegations as "malicious, reckless, and deliberately fabricated" with the intention of damaging his reputation.
According to the court documents, the Chief of Staff categorically denied ever meeting, speaking with, or having any form of communication with Matthew. He also denied requesting or receiving any financial inducement in connection with any government programme or agency.
The legal team argued that the repeated publication and circulation of the allegations across various media and social media platforms had subjected Gbajabiamila to public ridicule, embarrassment, and reputational damage both within Nigeria and internationally.
As part of the reliefs sought before the court, Gbajabiamila is asking for ₦15 billion in general and exemplary damages for alleged defamation.
The suit also seeks a mandatory court order compelling Matthew to publish written apologies in five national newspapers with nationwide circulation. In addition, the Chief of Staff wants the defendant to prominently display the retractions and apologies across all his social media platforms for a continuous period of 30 days.
Gbajabiamila further requested an order restraining Matthew from making or publishing any further defamatory statements against him.
The latest civil action comes amid Matthew's ongoing criminal prosecution over allegations bordering on the forgery of presidential documents.
According to prosecutors, Matthew allegedly forged official presidential documents and used them to support claims relating to the establishment and funding of the purported Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council (PFIPC).
Authorities have maintained that the PFIPC has never been established by the Federal Government and has no legal or administrative recognition within the Presidency.
The criminal proceedings have attracted public attention because Matthew repeatedly alleged that senior government officials were involved in the alleged diversion of funds connected to the non-existent agency.
Gbajabiamila has consistently rejected the allegations, insisting they are baseless and intended solely to tarnish his integrity and public image.
Legal observers say the defamation suit underscores the increasing use of civil litigation by public officials to challenge what they consider false and damaging allegations circulated online.
Some legal practitioners note that the case could test the courts' approach to balancing freedom of expression with the protection of individual reputation, particularly where allegations involve public office holders.
Political analysts also believe the outcome of both the civil and criminal proceedings may shape public confidence in the handling of high-profile allegations involving government officials.
Supporters of the Chief of Staff have welcomed the legal action, arguing that individuals making corruption allegations should be prepared to substantiate their claims with credible evidence.
On the other hand, some civil society advocates maintain that while public officials have the right to seek legal redress against defamatory statements, such cases should be resolved transparently through the judicial process to reinforce public trust in the rule of law.
The High Court of the Federal Capital Territory is expected to fix a date for the commencement of proceedings after the defendant is served with the court processes.
