“Where Is The ₦421.2m?” — Ogunboss Faces Fresh Questions As Passman, Boyloaf And Gbaboyor Enter Amnesty Dispute

by Tarakirivoice

The dispute over 45 alleged Presidential Amnesty Programme beneficiaries and a claimed ₦421.2 million in accumulated entitlements has taken a more confrontational turn after former militant leader Paul Eres, popularly known as General Ogunboss, addressed the allegations in a lengthy social media video.

But while Eres’ response challenged the account presented by Akpas Augustine, his decision to devote significant attention to Tarakirivoice Publisher Passman Akpos, former militant leader General Boyloaf and Jude Gbaboyor has opened another line of questions:

Is the argument about 45 alleged beneficiaries — or is the controversy now being redirected into a wider personal dispute?

The answer cannot be established from competing allegations alone.

What can be established is that the original controversy concerns people who are being described as former or alleged beneficiaries, the payments allegedly due to them, and the records that should exist to establish whether they were actually recognised under the Amnesty framework.

And that is where the investigation begins.

The ₦421.2 Million Calculation

Akpas Augustine, who says he is speaking on behalf of the affected individuals, has alleged that 45 youths from Sagbama associated with Ogunboss’ camp have gone for years without receiving their expected Amnesty payments.

Augustine has used the current monthly stipend figure of ₦65,000 to calculate what he says could amount to ₦421.2 million over 12 years for 45 people.

That figure is a calculation attributed to Augustine, not an independently verified PAP debt.

Several assumptions therefore require verification, including whether all 45 persons were officially recognised beneficiaries throughout the entire 12-year period, whether ₦65,000 was the applicable monthly rate throughout that period, whether payments were approved for every person and every month, and whether any payments were made during the period in question.

Those questions are important because a mathematical calculation based on a current stipend rate does not, by itself, establish that a government agency owes the calculated amount.

That can only be established through the relevant records.

Ogunboss’ Account Is Fundamentally Different

Eres has rejected the allegation.

In his video, Eres said the individuals described as beneficiaries were not members of his camp and claimed their names were not contained in the master list associated with his camp.

He also said he had previously responded to petitions concerning the matter.

According to Eres’ account, persons connected to the dispute had also taken the matter to court and, he claimed, lost the case.

Those assertions are attributable to Eres.

This report has not independently established the contents of the alleged master list, the identity of any specific litigants, the case numbers or the outcome of any court proceedings referred to in the video.

Watch video here 👇

That distinction matters.

Because if Eres’ position is that the 45 people were never part of his recognised camp structure, then the documentary question is relatively straightforward:

Where is the official list?

“Show Us The Master List”

If the alleged 45 beneficiaries were officially recognised under the Amnesty Programme through the relevant structure, there should ordinarily be documentary evidence capable of establishing their status.

If Eres is correct that their names do not appear on the relevant list, that record could substantially clarify his position.

If Augustine and the affected individuals possess documents showing that they were officially recognised, those documents would equally be relevant.

The dispute therefore presents an opportunity to move away from accusations and towards verification.

Names.

Dates.

Beneficiary status.

Approval records.

Payment schedules.

Bank records where applicable.

Correspondence with PAP.

Petitions and responses.

And court records, if litigation actually occurred.

Those documents could tell the public considerably more than another round of accusations.

Why Did Passman Akpos Enter The Picture?

The controversy took another turn when Eres addressed Tarakirivoice Publisher Passman Akpos.

Eres alleged that Tarakirivoice and its publisher were connected to General Boyloaf and Jude Gbaboyor and claimed that publications concerning him formed part of a broader campaign against him.

Those claims were made by Eres.

This report has not independently established that such a coordinated campaign exists, nor does the publication treat Eres’ allegations as established facts.

But the claims raise an obvious journalistic question:

What evidence supports the alleged connection?

If there is documentary evidence establishing coordination, financial links, instructions, communications or another concrete relationship relevant to the allegations, such evidence would be material.

If there is no such evidence, then the allegations remain assertions made during an increasingly heated public dispute.

Passman Akpos’ role as publisher also raises a separate issue.

A media organisation reporting allegations involving a public-interest programme does not, by itself, establish that the publisher is a participant in the underlying dispute.

The relevant question is therefore not simply who published the story, but whether the published allegations are supported by identifiable evidence.

Boyloaf And Gbaboyor

The inclusion of General Boyloaf and Jude Gbaboyor has further expanded the controversy.

Eres has made allegations linking them to the dispute, but this report does not independently establish those alleged connections or attribute any unverified motive to either individual.

If the individuals mentioned by Eres dispute his account, their responses and any supporting evidence would be relevant to a complete examination of the controversy.

That is precisely why documentary evidence matters.

The Court Claim Also Needs Evidence

Eres’ reference to litigation presents another potentially verifiable part of the dispute.

He claimed that people involved in the matter had gone to court and lost.

That is a specific factual assertion capable of documentary verification.

Which court?

What was the case number?

Who were the parties?

What was the subject matter?

What judgment was delivered?

When was it delivered?

Was there an appeal?

What exactly did the court decide?

Until those details are independently verified, the statement should remain attributed to Eres rather than presented as an established judicial finding.

The Real Accountability Question

At the heart of this controversy is not whether one personality can make the strongest video.

It is whether the underlying beneficiary records can withstand public scrutiny.

If 45 people were legitimately recognised beneficiaries and their payments were withheld for years, there should be records capable of demonstrating that.

If they were never recognised beneficiaries, there should likewise be records capable of demonstrating that.

If their names were removed, there should be documentation showing when and why.

If payments were approved but not received, payment records should help explain what happened.

And if the alleged ₦421.2 million calculation is materially wrong, the relevant records should make it possible to identify exactly where the calculation fails.

That is the investigation the public deserves.

Not personalities.

Not insults.

Not competing social-media videos.

Records.

What Should PAP Clarify?

The Presidential Amnesty Programme could potentially bring greater clarity by addressing the factual questions at the centre of the dispute, subject to applicable privacy and administrative rules:

1. Were the 45 individuals ever officially recognised as beneficiaries?

2. What records establish their beneficiary status?

3. Were they associated with Ogunboss’ camp in the official records?

4. What does the relevant master list show?

5. Were payments approved for the individuals?

6. What payments, if any, were actually made?

7. Were any beneficiaries removed, delisted or otherwise affected administratively?

8. Were petitions submitted concerning the matter, and what responses were issued?

9. What court proceedings, if any, arose from the dispute?

10. Is there any official basis for the ₦421.2 million figure?

Until those questions are answered with records, the public is left with two competing narratives.

Augustine’s Account

Augustine alleges that 45 Sagbama youths connected to Ogunboss’ camp were denied years of Amnesty payments and has calculated the alleged accumulated amount at ₦421.2 million.

Ogunboss’ Account

Eres rejects that account, says the alleged beneficiaries were not members of his camp and claims their names are absent from the relevant master list.

Eres has also alleged connections involving Passman Akpos, Boyloaf and Gbaboyor and has threatened legal action over what he described as defamation and cyberbullying.

None of those disputed allegations is treated by Tarakirivoice as independently established merely because they have been made publicly.

The Question Nobody Can Escape

The dispute has become larger than a social-media argument.

It now concerns the integrity of records surrounding alleged Amnesty beneficiaries and the handling of claims involving potentially substantial public funds.

The ₦421.2 million figure may ultimately prove to be accurate, inaccurate, overstated, understated or based on assumptions that do not correspond with official beneficiary records.

But that determination should come from evidence.

And Eres’ denial may ultimately be supported by the official records — or the records may raise further questions.

Either way, the documents should decide the argument.

So the central question remains:

WHERE IS THE ₦421.2 MILLION — AND WHAT DOES THE OFFICIAL AMNESTY MASTER LIST ACTUALLY SHOW ABOUT THE 45 ALLEGED BENEFICIARIES?

Until the relevant records are produced and independently examined, every side of the dispute should be treated according to the same standard:

Allegations are allegations.

Denials are denials.

Evidence is evidence.

And in a matter involving alleged public funds and alleged beneficiaries, the public has a legitimate interest in seeing the facts established by the records.