By Staff Reporter
Former Minister of Youth and Sports Development, Barrister Solomon Dalung, has criticised the Presidency’s statement defending the Chief of Staff to the President, Femi Gbajabiamila, arguing that it raises more questions than it answers over the alleged activities of Prince Adeyemi and a purported government agency.
In a statement, Dalung said that while the Presidency sought to dismiss allegations surrounding the matter, its explanation had instead intensified public concerns about the role of government institutions.
According to him, even if every allegation against Prince Adeyemi were assumed to be true, the Presidency still owes Nigerians answers on how an allegedly fictitious agency was able to operate within official government structures.
Dalung questioned how a private individual could allegedly create a presidential agency, secure office space within the Federal Secretariat, recruit staff, engage with diplomats, correspond with government institutions, and reportedly operate through official channels without detection.
He also raised concerns over reports that the purported agency appeared in the national budget with a multi-billion-naira allocation.
“If the agency never existed, how did it find its way into the Appropriation Act?” he asked, adding that budgetary allocations pass through several layers of executive and legislative scrutiny before approval.
Dalung called on the Presidency to explain who introduced the budget line, who processed and approved it, and why no questions were raised about the agency’s legal status.
He further questioned how office space was allegedly obtained within the Federal Secretariat, asking under whose authority the facility was allocated, how long it operated, and whether any public officials interacted with those behind the alleged operation.
According to the former minister, these are governance issues that deserve transparent explanations rather than political responses.
Dalung also drew attention to the Presidency’s reference to Dolapo Babatunde Tanimola, whom it identified as the alleged link between Adeyemi and the disputed appointment. He noted that the statement disclosed Tanimola died in a hotel fire five days before Adeyemi’s arrest but provided no further details.
He questioned whether investigators conducted an autopsy, a coroner’s inquest, or a forensic examination of Tanimola’s communications, financial records and electronic devices.
“These are not conspiracy theories,” Dalung said. “They are legitimate questions any serious investigation should address.”
While acknowledging that the courts would determine whether Adeyemi is guilty of any wrongdoing, Dalung argued that accountability should extend beyond prosecuting one individual.
He maintained that the government should also explain how its institutions allegedly interacted with or failed to detect what the Presidency has described as a fabricated agency.
According to him, Nigerians deserve documentary evidence, timelines and official records that clarify how the alleged operation was able to function if it was indeed fraudulent.
“The public deserves more than a carefully written press statement,” Dalung said. “It deserves answers backed by records, timelines and evidence.”
The Presidency had earlier defended the Chief of Staff, distancing his office from the controversy and maintaining that the alleged agency and appointments in question were not recognised by the Federal Government.
