Nigerian lawmakers accused of demanding bribe from Binance official react to allegations

Two Nigerian lawmakers at the centre of the bribery allegation made by Tigran Gambaryan, the head of financial crime for the crypto firm Binance, have denied demanding a bribe in exchange for halting a probe against the firm.

Mr Gambaryan, in a post on Friday, alleged that some members of the House of Representatives demanded a $150 million bribe from him during a meeting in Abuja to halt the probe.

He specifically named Philip Agbese, Peter Ankpanke, and another person he could not identify. However, PREMIUM TIMES learnt that the other person is Peter Anakwe.

The Binance official also implicated the committee chairman, Ginger Onwusibe, and the National Security Adviser (NSA), Nuhu Ribadu.

Lawmakers respond to allegations

Reacting to the allegation, Mr Agbese acknowledged that he attended the meeting with Binance representatives but categorically denied any involvement in bribery.

He emphasised that he is not a member of the Financial Crimes Committee of the House and had only stopped by the office of his colleague, Mr Ankpanke when he met the meeting in progress.

The lawmaker maintained that he only engaged in the meeting briefly to inquire about Binance’s operations and left without making any demands.

“Let it be on record that I am not a member of the Committee on Economic and Financial Crimes. I visited my colleague, Hon. Peter Ankpanke, in his office, where he was meeting with some visitors regarding a matter related to his committee, with Hon. Peter Anakwe, a committee member, also present.

“We exchanged pleasantries, and, in keeping with my character as an avid pursuer of knowledge, I inquired about Binance’s activities. However, no demands were made by anyone.

“It was during this visit to Hon. Peter Ankpanke’s office, with Hon. Peter Anakwe present, that he informed me they were interfacing with the Binance team from abroad over a referral to their committee.

“What transpired between the two of them and the Binance executive after I left the office is left to them. I never saw those visitors again after that chance meeting and did not subsequently attend any meetings with Binance executives, the EFCC, or the DSS,” he said.

Mr Agbese threatened legal action against Mr Gambaryan, demanding that he provide substantive evidence or issue a retraction and an apology within seven days.

“I further demand that, failing to provide evidence as stated, Tigran Gambaryan must retract his malicious claims and publications and issue an apology to me within the next seven days, or he will face legal action from my lawyers,” he added.

On his part, Mr Onwusibe said he had already taken legal action against Binance over the matter.

He provided a copy of his litigation dated 14 January, 2025. The suit requests the court to dismiss an ex parte order and a writ of summons against Binance for lack of jurisdiction.

Background of the Binance-Nigeria battle

The controversy between Binance and Nigerian authorities dates back to early 2024 when the government accused the cryptocurrency platform of manipulating foreign exchange rates.

The government subsequently detained Mr Gambaryan and another Binance executive, Nadeem Anjarwalla, when they arrived in Nigeria for discussions in February 2024. While Mr Anjarwalla later escaped , Mr Gambaryan remained in custody.

The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) and the Federal Inland Revenue Service (FIRS) thereafter charged Binance and its executives with tax evasion, money laundering, and forex violations.

However, Mr Gambaryan’s legal team argued that he was merely an employee without decision-making power at Binance. After a few months of detention, Mr Gambaryan’s health reportedly deteriorated.

In October 2024, the Federal High Court in Abuja dropped the money laundering charges against him, and he was later released from detention.

In response, Mr Gambaryan also sued the Nigerian authorities, seeking redress with a claim that his detention was unlawful and demanded compensation for the distress suffered by him and his family.

Meanwhile, the NSA and EFCC insisted that they acted within the law.