Adeyemigate: Former Minister Dalung slams FG for defending Gbajabiamila
“The statement was clearly intended to shut down public scrutiny. Ironically, it has achieved the exact opposite. It answered some questions, but in doing so, it exposed even bigger ones,” Dalung
By Sanni Abdullahi
Former Minister of Youth and Sports Development, Barrister Solomon Dalung, has launched a scathing critique of the Federal Government’s response to the controversy surrounding Prince Adeyemi, accusing the Presidency of using a defensive statement to suppress public scrutiny instead of providing clarity.
Dalung was reacting to a statement issued by Bayo Onanuga, Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, which sought to defend Chief of Staff to the President, Femi Gbajabiamila, amid allegations linking him to the embattled Prince Adeyemi.
In a strongly worded intervention made available to newsrooms on Monday, the former minister said the Presidency’s attempt to close the matter had instead opened up more troubling questions about institutional failures within government.
“A Statement That Raised More Questions Than Answers”
Dalung said he read the presidential statement with keen interest, but concluded that it was designed to “shut down public scrutiny.” According to him, the effect has been the opposite.
“The statement was clearly intended to shut down public scrutiny. Ironically, it has achieved the exact opposite. It answered some questions, but in doing so, it exposed even bigger ones,” Dalung stated.
He argued that even if every allegation against Prince Adeyemi were taken as true, the narrative presented by the government does not hold together without exposing serious lapses in state institutions.
Dalung painted a picture of how improbable it would be for a private citizen to single-handedly create and sustain what appears to be a government entity.
“You are asking Nigerians to believe that one private citizen woke up one morning, invented a presidential agency, forged his own appointment, secured office space inside the Federal Secretariat, recruited staff, held meetings with diplomats, corresponded with government institutions, allegedly opened a CBN account through official channels, and if the official budget documents are anything to go by, the same non-existent agency found its way into the Appropriation Act with an allocation running into billions,” he said.
The Budget Puzzle
The former minister zeroed in on what he described as the most “deafening silence” in the Presidency’s statement: the appearance of the alleged fictitious agency in the national budget.
“How does a fictitious agency appear in the national budget? Budget allocations do not descend from heaven. They pass through ministries, the Budget Office, executive review and legislative approval. Who introduced the line item? Who processed it? Who signed off on it? Who failed to ask whether the agency even existed?” Dalung asked.
He insisted that these are not partisan or political questions, but core governance questions that demand answers from public officials and civil servants responsible for budget integrity.
Questions Over Federal Secretariat Office
Dalung also challenged the government to explain how an office was allegedly operated inside the Federal Secretariat if the entire arrangement was fraudulent.
“Offices inside government complexes are not roadside kiosks. How was the space obtained? Under whose authority? How long did it operate? Who interacted with the occupants? Who looked the other way?” he queried.
According to him, the government’s failure to address these points creates the impression that accountability is being avoided.
The Case of Dolapo Babatunde Tanimola
Perhaps the most startling part of Dalung’s remarks focused on Dolapo Babatunde Tanimola, described in the Presidency’s statement as the alleged link between Adeyemi and the purported appointment.
The Presidency disclosed that Tanimola died in a hotel fire just five days before Adeyemi’s arrest. Dalung said the timing and lack of detail were deeply concerning.
“That is an extraordinary detail. Yet we are given almost nothing beyond it. Was there an autopsy? Was there a coroner’s inquest? What did investigators conclude about the fire? Were his electronic devices, communications and financial records examined? If he was central enough to be named in the statement, why is the public expected not to ask what became of the investigation into his death?” Dalung asked.
He maintained that these were not conspiracy theories, but “the obvious questions any serious investigator would ask.”
“Bigger Than One Man”
Dalung said the government cannot narrow the issue to whether Adeyemi is an impostor while ignoring the role of state systems that appeared to enable him.
“The Presidency wants Nigerians to focus exclusively on whether Adeyemi is an impostor. Fair enough. The courts will determine that. But the Presidency cannot ask the public to ignore the conduct of government institutions in the same breath,” he said.
He laid out a set of demands for transparency: explain how the council entered the budget, explain how systems interacted with the beneficiary, explain where safeguards failed, and produce a documentary trail if there was no insider involvement.
“Accountability does not begin and end with charging one individual. It also requires explaining how the machinery of government appeared to validate, accommodate or fail to detect what is now described as a complete fabrication,” Dalung stated.
He concluded that Nigerians deserve more than a press statement. “The public deserves answers backed by records, timelines and evidence. Until those answers are provided, this matter is far from settled.”
The Presidency had yet to respond to Dalung’s latest comments at the time of filing this report.
The controversy, now dubbed “Adeyemigate” by observers, continues to generate debate over transparency, due process, and institutional oversight in government operations.
