By Taiwo Scholarstica
The Chief of Staff to the President, Femi Gbajabiamila, has instituted a N15 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 N27.3 billion take-off grant approved for a federal agency.
In the suit, Gbajabiamila is seeking N10 billion in general damages, N5 billion in aggravated damages, N200 million as the cost of the action, and an order directing Adeyemi to publish a full retraction and apology in five national newspapers.
He also asked the court to compel the defendant to pin the apology on all social media platforms and online channels where the alleged defamatory statements were published for a period of 30 days.
The case was filed by Gbajabiamila’s legal team from Pinheiro LP, led by Kemi Pinheiro, alongside Folu Oguntade, Olukayode Enitan and Chukwudi Enebeli, who described the allegations as false, malicious and defamatory.
According to the statement of claim, Adeyemi had alleged during a press conference that a disagreement arose after Gbajabiamila allegedly demanded a 48 per cent kickback from the agency’s N27.3 billion take-off grant.
He further claimed that N400 million had already been paid through a proxy allegedly acting on behalf of the Chief of Staff, while another N200 million was requested to facilitate presidential approvals.
However, Gbajabiamila denied the allegations, insisting that he had never met or communicated with Adeyemi and had never authorised anyone to act on his behalf.
“The claimant has never met the defendant, never held any meeting with him and has never authorised any intermediary, representative, agent or proxy to demand or receive money on his behalf,” the court filing stated.
The suit also referred to Adeyemi’s claims regarding the death of one Babatunde Tanimola, whom he alleged served as an intermediary between him and the Chief of Staff.
Adeyemi claimed that Tanimola died in a hotel fire in Utako, Abuja, on October 22, 2025, a day after Gbajabiamila allegedly petitioned the police.
He also alleged that he survived an assassination attempt along the Abuja-Kaduna Expressway in September 2025 and claimed that a “directive from above” instructed the Department of State Services (DSS) and the Nigeria Police Force to discontinue efforts to recover his stolen mobile phones, which he said contained crucial evidence.
Court documents showed that Gbajabiamila’s solicitors issued a cease-and-desist letter dated July 6, 2026, which was published in THISDAY and other national newspapers on July 7, demanding an immediate retraction and apology.
Rather than withdraw the allegations, the claimant alleged that Adeyemi later granted an interview to social media influencer VeryDarkMan, during which he made statements that contradicted his earlier claims.
According to Gbajabiamila’s witness statement on oath, Adeyemi admitted in the interview that he had never met the Chief of Staff physically, never had a video conversation with him, and had no independent means of confirming the identity of the person he believed to be Gbajabiamila.
The claimant further stated that Adeyemi admitted that all his communications were conducted through the late Tanimola.
Gbajabiamila also informed the court that Adeyemi acknowledged he could neither say the Chief of Staff was lying nor confirm he was telling the truth, adding that he intended to submit his documents to law enforcement agencies for verification.
Despite those admissions, Gbajabiamila alleged that Adeyemi repeated the accusations during an appearance on Politics Today on Channels Television on July 13, 2026.
The court filings further revealed that Adeyemi is currently standing trial before the Federal High Court, Abuja, in Charge No. FHC/ABJ/CR/652/2026: Federal Republic of Nigeria v. Prince Adeniyi Adeyemi Matthew & Others, over allegations involving forged presidential documents and forged appointment letters.
According to the claimant, those documents formed the basis of Adeyemi’s public allegations against him.
The FCT High Court has directed Adeyemi, whose address was listed as unknown but deemed to be within the court’s jurisdiction, to enter an appearance within 14 days of being served with the originating processes, failing which judgment may be entered against him.
In his witness statement, Gbajabiamila maintained that he had never met Adeyemi and had no personal, official or professional relationship with him.
He denied demanding any kickback, receiving N400 million through a proxy, requesting an additional N200 million, abusing his office, manipulating security agencies, intimidating media organisations or interfering in investigations involving the defendant.
The Chief of Staff also denied directing the Nigeria Police Force, DSS, Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC), or any other law enforcement agency to harass or investigate Adeyemi.
He further denied any knowledge of the circumstances surrounding Tanimola’s death or the alleged attempts on Adeyemi’s life.
Gbajabiamila told the court that he had built his reputation over decades of public service on integrity, honesty and fidelity to duty, stressing that while public officials should expect scrutiny, the allegations against him amounted to false accusations of corruption, bribery, abuse of office and other criminal conduct.
He said the repeated publication of the allegations sparked widespread public discussion and enquiries from friends, associates and professional colleagues within and outside Nigeria, causing significant damage to his reputation.
Gbajabiamila added that he deliberately avoided engaging in a media exchange because he believed the courts were the appropriate forum to determine the matter.
He said the suit was filed not only to protect his personal reputation but also to preserve the integrity and dignity of the Office of the Chief of Staff to the President.
The claimant urged the court to grant all the reliefs sought, expressing confidence that the evidence before the court would justify the orders requested.