Stakeholders back Gbajabiamila, call for restraint over PFIPC, PEAC allegations

A group of public affairs advocates and civic leaders has urged Nigerians to refrain from distracting the Chief of Staff to President Bola Tinubu, Hon. Femi Gbajabiamila, with what they described as unsubstantiated allegations concerning the Presidential Fiscal and Investment Policy Commission (PFIPC) and the Presidential Economic Advisory Council (PEAC).

A statement jointly signed by United States-based public affairs commentator, Kofo Williams; chairman of Concerned Nigerians in Diaspora, United Kingdom, Abanikanda Olumoro; convener of the Concerned Fulani People of Nigeria, Ibrahim Barkindo Chubado; and leader of the Assembly of Lagos Youths, Lasisi Robert, stressed that while accountability remains fundamental to democratic governance, public discourse must be guided by facts, evidence and due process rather than speculation or political grandstanding.

The group said recent allegations and public statements directed at Gbajabiamila over issues relating to PFIPC and PEAC underscored the need for caution and responsibility in public engagements.

According to the statement, although citizens and stakeholders have every right to raise questions about budgetary allocations and the operations of government institutions, such concerns should be based on verified information and a proper understanding of the budgetary process.

The civic leaders argued that unsubstantiated allegations, particularly those capable of distracting key government officials from their responsibilities, do little to advance transparency or national development.

They maintained that attempts to link the Chief of Staff to controversies founded on assumptions rather than facts amounted to unnecessary distractions for the Presidency at a time when the administration is focused on implementing critical reforms.

ALSO READ: VIDEO: South Africans hit streets to enforce June 30 deadline for ‘illegal’ immigrants

The statement argued that where critics have reservations about how certain agencies or programmes were captured in the national budget, the appropriate institution to seek clarification from is the National Assembly, which constitutionally has the authority to consider, amend and pass appropriation bills.

It noted that the budget process involves several layers of legislative scrutiny and input, making it inappropriate to single out any individual without clear evidence of wrongdoing.

The group also urged commentators to verify basic facts before raising public concerns over budgetary figures linked to presidential advisory bodies or agencies reportedly disclaimed by public officials.

“Before raising public alarm over figures linked to a presidential advisory council or any agency reportedly disclaimed by an official, a fundamental question ought to be asked: Which of the entities in question actually has the budgetary allocation? Is it one of them, both of them, or neither?” the statement said.

According to the civic leaders, such verification is necessary to prevent misleading the public and creating avoidable controversies.

While acknowledging that criticism and dissent are legitimate instruments for strengthening democratic governance, the group cautioned that such interventions lose their value when they are not supported by adequate fact-checking.

It added that public commentary should enlighten citizens rather than inflame passions or create confusion.

The statement described the Office of the Chief of Staff to the President as a strategic institution responsible for coordinating government activities and supporting the President in delivering on his mandate.

It argued that at a time when Nigerians expect progress in economic recovery, investment promotion, security and social development, the country could ill afford distractions driven by unverified claims.

The civic leaders reiterated that constructive criticism remains necessary but insisted that demands for accountability must be rooted in facts, proper institutional engagement and respect for established processes.

According to the group, transparency should unite rather than divide citizens, while public officials should be judged on the basis of evidence rather than conjecture.

The statement added that national progress would be best served through informed, responsible public discourse focused on solutions instead of sensationalism.