Prince Adeniyi Adeyemi Matthew is accused of allegedly forging presidential appointment documents, impersonating a public servant, creating fictitious government institutions, attempting to secure billions of naira in public funding and obtaining ₦400 million from a businessman under the pretext of facilitating a government contract.
February 2023 – July 2026
ABUJA, Nigeria
By A1 News International
A 22-count charge against Prince Adeniyi Adeyemi Matthew has detailed allegations of forgery, impersonation, attempted fraud, obtaining money by false pretences and offering financial inducements to public officers in connection with a purported presidential agency.
The allegations, contained in the charge particulars supplied to A1 News International, centre on the purported Presidential Foreign Investment Promotion Council (PFIPC) and the Presidential Economic Advisory Council/Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council (PEAC/PFIPC).
According to the charge, Matthew allegedly used documents bearing purported State House letterheads, an appointment letter attributed to the Chief of Staff to the President, an alleged executive order and purported legislative provisions to present the entities as established government institutions.
The 22 counts further allege that the defendant attempted to obtain government budgetary provisions, sought administrative and financial recognition for the purported agency, collected ₦380 million and ₦20 million from a businessman in connection with an alleged government contract, and made payments to two public officers to facilitate access to official vehicles and office accommodation.
The allegations cover transactions and activities said to have occurred between February 2023 and July 2026 in Abuja, within the jurisdiction of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT).
The charge particulars cite provisions of the Penal Code, the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Fraud Related Offences Act, 2006, and the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act, 2000.
The allegations remain allegations. The charge particulars alone do not establish the defendant’s guilt, and the outcome of any proceedings must be determined by a competent court.
Alleged Forgery of Presidential Appointment Letter
The first count alleges that Matthew fraudulently made a document dated March 8, 2024, with reference number SH/COS/209/A/3456.
The document purportedly bore the signature or authority of Femi Gbajabiamila, Chief of Staff to the President, and allegedly appointed Matthew as Director-General of the Presidential Foreign Investment Promotion Council.
The prosecution’s allegation, as set out in the charge, is that the document was forged with the intention of making it appear genuine.
The second count alleges that Matthew subsequently used the purported appointment letter as genuine between March 8, 2024, and July 2026, allegedly to obtain official recognition and legitimacy for the purported agency.
The counts are brought under Sections 364 and 366 of the Penal Code, Cap. 532, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria (Abuja), 1990.
Alleged Impersonation and Occupation of Government Office
The third count accuses Matthew of personating a public servant by allegedly presenting himself as the Director-General of the purported PFIPC.
According to the particulars, he allegedly occupied office facilities at the Federal Secretariat Complex, Phase III, on the second floor, in Rooms 2.10 to 2.20, within the Office of the Secretary to the Government of the Federation.
The charge alleges that he carried out functions involving government agencies while acting in the assumed capacity.
The count invokes Section 132 of the Penal Code, which addresses the offence of personating a public servant.
The allegation raises questions about the verification of appointments, the allocation of government office facilities and the procedures through which individuals obtain access to official institutions.
However, the charge particulars do not, by themselves, establish what checks were undertaken by the relevant government offices or whether any officials knowingly facilitated the alleged conduct.
Alleged Fabrication of Legislative Provisions
Counts four and five concern a purported law or legislative instrument titled the Presidential Economic Advisory Council (PEAC)/Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council (PFIPC), Chapter N2117, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria.
The charge alleges that Matthew fraudulently created the document in 2024 to present the purported agency as a legally established government entity.
It further alleges that he used the document to seek official recognition and legitimacy for the institution.
The prosecution’s case, as reflected in the particulars, is that the purported legislative instrument was intended to lend legal credibility to the entity and support Matthew’s claimed position as its Director-General.
These allegations are distinct from the question of whether an institution with a similar name exists or has existed in another legal or administrative capacity. The precise status of the named bodies should be established through official records and evidence presented in court.
Alleged Forgery of Executive Order No. 5
Counts six and seven concern an alleged Executive Order No. 5 dated February 24, 2023.
According to the charge, Matthew allegedly forged a document purporting to establish the Presidential Foreign Intervention Council, identified in the particulars by the acronym PFIPC.
The subsequent count alleges that he used the purported executive order between February 2023 and July 2026 to present the institution as a duly established government entity.
The prosecution alleges that the document was intended to be accepted as genuine and used to obtain government recognition and legitimacy for the purported agency.
The allegations place the authenticity of the purported executive order at the centre of the case.
Establishing whether the document was issued by the appropriate authority, whether it appeared in official government records and how it was circulated would be relevant to determining the allegations before the court.
Alleged Use of State House Letterheads to Seek Government Recognition
Several counts relate to letters allegedly prepared on purported State House letterheads and addressed to senior government officials.
Request for Administrative Code
Counts eight and nine concern a letter dated November 7, 2024, with reference number SH/PS/PFIPC/RO/107.
The document was allegedly addressed to the Accountant-General of the Federation and captioned Request for Administrative Code for Presidential Foreign Investment Promotion Council.
According to the charge, the letter purportedly bore the signature of an individual identified as Akanbi Adewale, described as Director of Administration and Support Services.
The particulars allege that the named director and office did not exist and that the letter was fabricated to make the purported agency appear legitimate.
The ninth count alleges that Matthew knowingly or with reason to believe the document was forged used it as genuine.
Request for Self-Accounting Status
Counts 10 and 11 concern another letter, dated March 12, 2025, with reference number SH/PEAC/PFIPC/RO/210.
The document was allegedly addressed to the Accountant-General of the Federation and captioned Re: Request for Approval of Self-Accounting Status.
The charge alleges that the letter was created and used to enable the purported PEAC/PFIPC to operate within the government’s financial reporting structure.
The prosecution’s allegation is that the document was intended to persuade the relevant authorities to recognise the purported entity as an established government institution.
Request for Domain Name Registration
Counts 14 and 15 concern a letter dated September 27, 2024, with reference number SH/OVP/PFIPC/DG/210.
The letter was allegedly addressed to the Director-General of the National Information Technology Development Agency (NITDA) and captioned Request for Registration of Domain Name for the Presidential Foreign Investment Promotion Council.
The charge alleges that the document was produced on a purported State House letterhead and subsequently used to support the claimed official status of the PFIPC.
The particulars further allege that Matthew knew or had reason to believe the document was forged when he used it.
Together, these counts raise allegations concerning the use of purported official correspondence to obtain administrative recognition, financial classification and digital identity for the institution.
Alleged Attempt to Obtain ₦27.39 Billion Take-Off Grant
Counts 12 and 13 concern a letter dated March 3, 2025, with reference number SH/DG/PEAC/PFIPC/RQ/25/202.
The document was allegedly addressed to the Minister of Finance and Coordinating Minister of the Economy.
It reportedly requested approval and release of a take-off grant of ₦27,395,510,136 for the purported Presidential Economic Advisory Council and Presidential Foreign Investment Promotion Council.
According to the charge, the letter was allegedly prepared on a purported State House letterhead to make the request appear authentic.
The subsequent count alleges that Matthew used the document as genuine despite knowing, or having reason to believe, that it was forged.
The amount represents a request for government funding, according to the particulars. The supplied charge does not establish that the requested grant was approved or that the money was released.
That distinction is important: an alleged attempt to secure public funds is not, in itself, proof that the funds were obtained.
Alleged Attempt to Secure ₦3.85 Billion in Personnel Funding
Counts 16, 17 and 18 concern an alleged attempt to obtain government budgetary provision for the purported PEAC/PFIPC.
The charge alleges that between August 20, 2025, and July 2026, Matthew attempted to induce the Director-General of the Budget Office of the Federation to include ₦3,850,935,000 as the institution’s personnel cost proposal for the 2026 budget.
Count 16 brings the allegation under Sections 5(2) and 1(b) of the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Fraud Related Offences Act, 2006, punishable under Section 1(3) of the same Act.
Counts 17 and 18 concern the alleged forgery and use of a letter dated August 20, 2025, with a reference number recorded in the charge as PEAC/PFIPC/DG/FMF/Vol.010.
The document was allegedly addressed to the Director-General of the Budget Office of the Federation at the Federal Ministry of Finance and captioned Re: 2026 Personnel Cost Budget Proposal for the Presidential Economic Advisory Council/Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council (PEAC/PFIPC).
The charge alleges that the letter was fabricated on a purported State House letterhead and used to support the budget proposal.
The particulars do not establish that the proposed allocation was approved or that any amount was paid to the purported agency.
Businessman Allegedly Paid ₦400 Million Over Purported Government Contract
Counts 19 and 20 contain allegations concerning payments totalling ₦400 million by Oyekunle Gbenga, Managing Director of Divine Dopacy Nigeria Limited.
According to the charge, the payments were allegedly obtained under the description of a project facilitation loan linked to a purported government contract.
Alleged ₦380 Million Payment
Count 19 alleges that between May 16 and June 20, 2025, Matthew obtained ₦380 million from Gbenga.
The money was allegedly paid into a Guaranty Trust Bank account numbered 0695674387 belonging to World Entrepreneurship University Limited, which the charge describes as Matthew’s company.
The payment was allegedly made under the pretence of a project facilitation loan relating to a purported contract valued at ₦2,874,592,261.72.
According to the particulars, the supposed contract was awarded by the purported PEAC/PFIPC to Divine Dopacy Nigeria Limited for the procurement of furniture and electronics and the refurbishment of the official residence of the purported agency’s Director-General.
The prosecution alleges that the representation was false and that the money was obtained with intent to defraud.
Alleged ₦20 Million Payment
Count 20 alleges that Matthew obtained an additional ₦20 million from Gbenga on or about July 29, 2025.
The payment was allegedly made into an Access Bank account numbered 1379777537 belonging to Sunshine Confectionary & Catering Services.
The charge states that the money was obtained under the same project facilitation loan arrangement relating to the purported contract.
If established by evidence, the two counts would place the alleged financial transactions and the representations made about the contract at the centre of the prosecution’s case.
The supplied particulars do not establish whether the alleged contract existed independently, whether any work was undertaken or whether the money was subsequently recovered.
The allegations of obtaining money by false pretences are brought under Sections 1(1)(a) and 1(3) of the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Fraud Related Offences Act, 2006.
Alleged ₦300,000 Payment to Facilitate Release of Official Vehicles
Count 21 accuses Matthew of corruptly offering a financial inducement to a public officer.
According to the charge, he allegedly paid ₦300,000 into a Unity Bank account numbered 0014965049 belonging to an individual identified as Ogaba Harry, described in the particulars as an officer in the Office of the Chief Economic Adviser to the President.
The alleged payments occurred sometime in March and November 2025.
The prosecution claims the money was intended to facilitate the release and handover of two official vehicles—a Prado Jeep and a Land Cruiser Jeep—to Matthew in his purported capacity as Director-General of the PFIPC.
The charge alleges that the vehicles were to be released without official authorisation.
It cites Section 9(a), punishable under Section 9(b), of the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act, 2000.
The supplied particulars do not establish whether the vehicles were eventually released or whether the named officer has been charged with any offence.
Alleged ₦210,000 Payment for Office Accommodation
Count 22 concerns an alleged payment of ₦210,000 to Aminu Abdullahi, described as an Assistant Chief Technical Officer in the Office of the Secretary to the Government of the Federation.
The charge alleges that the money was paid into the recipient’s Access Bank and OPay accounts sometime in February 2025.
According to the particulars, the payment was allegedly intended to facilitate the allocation of office space to Matthew in his purported capacity as Director-General of the PFIPC, without official authorisation.
The prosecution characterises the alleged payment as a corrupt offer to a public officer under Section 9(a), punishable under Section 9(b), of the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act, 2000.
As with the allegation concerning the official vehicles, the charge particulars do not establish whether the intended benefit was ultimately secured or whether any other person was prosecuted in connection with the transaction.
The Legal Issues Raised by the 22 Counts
The allegations cover several distinct categories of criminal conduct.
First, the forgery counts concern the alleged creation of documents intended to appear as authentic presidential correspondence, executive orders and legislative instruments.
Second, the counts relating to the use of forged documents concern the alleged presentation of those materials to government institutions as genuine.
Third, the impersonation count concerns the alleged assumption of a public office and occupation of government facilities in that capacity.
Fourth, the financial fraud allegations concern the purported attempts to secure government budgetary provisions and obtain money from a private company through representations linked to an alleged government contract.
Finally, the corruption counts concern alleged payments intended to facilitate access to official vehicles and office accommodation.
Each allegation must be assessed according to the applicable law and the evidence presented in court. The fact that several counts concern related events does not remove the need to establish the elements of each alleged offence.
The charge particulars identify the relevant statutory provisions, but a definitive assessment of the prosecution’s case would require the complete charge, supporting evidence and any subsequent court records.
Conclusion: Questions of Accountability and Public-Sector Verification
The 22-count charge raises serious questions about the verification of presidential appointments, the authentication of official correspondence, access to government premises and the procedures for processing budgetary requests.
It also places alleged private-sector payments linked to a purported government contract under scrutiny, alongside claims of financial inducements involving public officers.
The allegations, if established in court, would have implications for the integrity of public administration and the safeguards designed to prevent unauthorised individuals or institutions from exploiting the appearance of government authority.
However, the charges must not be treated as proof of guilt. The prosecution bears the responsibility of establishing its case in accordance with the law, while the defendant retains the right to a fair hearing and the presumption of innocence.
A1 News International will continue to follow the case as verified court records and further developments become available.
Leave a Reply