Alleged 'Ghost Agency' Sparks Questions Over Federal Budget

A public commentator has questioned how an alleged government agency, reportedly allocated about ₦1.3 billion in the federal budget, found its way into the appropriation process despite claims by the Presidency that the agency does not exist.

Speaking during an interview with VDM Adeniyi Adeyemi Mathew said he was surprised by the Presidency's disclaimer, noting that an agency could not ordinarily appear in the national budget without passing through multiple stages of review involving the executive and the National Assembly.

According to him, he was not involved in preparing or defending the agency's budget because he had been invited by the Nigeria Police Force over a petition and was detained for 23 days during the period when the budget was being prepared. He added that after his release, he was arraigned in court and no longer had access to the office, which he said had already been reassigned.

The interviewer questioned how the agency's budget could have been approved without any official appearing to defend it before lawmakers, suggesting that the circumstances warrant a thorough investigation.

Responding to questions about his interactions with former Chief of Staff Femi Gbajabiamila, the former DG said he had only spoken with him a few times by telephone through a mutual acquaintance and had never met him privately to discuss the matter.

Asked whether he believed the former Chief of Staff was responsible, the former DG declined to make a direct accusation, stating that he could neither say he was lying nor that he was telling the truth. Instead, he called on President Bola Ahmed Tinubu to establish an independent investigative panel to determine how the agency appeared in the budget and identify those responsible.

He also said he was prepared to cooperate fully with investigators by voluntarily submitting all documents in his possession to the Department of State Services or the Nigeria Police Force to assist in uncovering the facts.

The interviewer concluded that the conflicting claims raise serious questions that require an impartial investigation, stressing that only a transparent inquiry can establish whether administrative errors, misconduct, or corruption played any role in the inclusion of the agency in the federal budget.