Abuja Kado Land Dispute: Lawyer Seeks Tinubu Govt, IGP’s Intervention Over Alleged Demolition

An Abuja-based lawyer, Mathew Onoja, has called on the Federal Government, the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) and the Inspector-General of Police to intervene in a land dispute in Kado, Abuja, following allegations that a disputed property was partially demolished while a court case over its ownership and possession remained pending.

Onoja, who represents a lessee of the Federal Capital Territory Administration (FCTA), alleged that individuals claiming an interest in the property moved to take control of the premises despite an ongoing police investigation and court proceedings involving the land.

The dispute has raised questions about the enforcement of land rights, the protection of property under litigation and the preservation of green spaces within the Federal Capital Territory.

Dispute Over FCTA-Leased Property

According to Onoja, his client occupies the property under a lease granted by the FCTA. He said the situation became contentious after the same property was allegedly allocated to another party.

The lawyer described the circumstances surrounding the purported second allocation as unusual, arguing that his client remained in possession of the property when the competing claim emerged.

In response, his client reportedly petitioned the Inspector-General of Police, requesting an investigation into how the land could have been allocated to another party while the existing lease remained in dispute.

Onoja said his client was invited by the police, adopted the petition and submitted available evidence supporting his claim.

He added that the police indicated that the other party would also be contacted and asked to present documents supporting its interest in the property.

However, according to the lawyer, the dispute escalated before the investigation was concluded.

Alleged Demolition Despite Pending Court Case

Onoja alleged that individuals arrived at the disputed property with equipment, including bulldozers, and began demolishing parts of the premises.

He said the operation resulted in the destruction of the perimeter fence, the felling of trees and damage to installations belonging to his client.

The lawyer stated that his client promptly notified the police and wrote to the FCTA’s Development Control Unit, informing the authorities that the property was the subject of a dispute already before the court.

According to him, the relevant parties had been joined in the lawsuit, including the sole director and shareholder of the other company involved in the dispute. He also said hearing notices had been issued.

Onoja further alleged that when he visited the property the following morning, he found the same group of individuals returning to continue the work.

He said he requested documents authorising their activities but was not shown any.

The lawyer claimed that he was instead told he had no right to question the individuals and should take the matter to court.

The allegations have not been independently verified, and the account does not include a response from the other party or the relevant government authorities.

Lawyer Calls for Status Quo as Court Case Continues

Onoja argued that the alleged actions could undermine the judicial process by changing the condition of a property whose competing claims are already before the court.

He maintained that parties involved in the litigation should refrain from taking steps that could affect the interests of others while the case remains unresolved.

The lawyer called for his client to remain in possession of the property until the court determines the parties’ respective rights.

He also appealed to the Federal Government, the FCT Minister and the Inspector-General of Police to intervene and ensure that the dispute is handled through lawful procedures.

Onoja disclosed that the matter was scheduled for a hearing in October 2026.

He added that his client’s chairman had also contacted the police and was invited in connection with the dispute.

The lawyer said the police and FCTA Development Control officials had previously been informed about the matter and the ongoing investigation.

Civil Society Group Raises Concerns Over Abuja Green Spaces

The dispute has also attracted the attention of a civil society advocate, Armsfree Ajanaku, whose group is concerned about the implications of the development for Abuja’s urban environment.

Ajanaku said the group became involved because the location was allegedly designated as a green area under the Abuja master plan.

He stressed that the matter extends beyond the competing private claims, raising broader questions about compliance with planning regulations and the protection of public green spaces.

According to him, the group is concerned about the gradual loss of green areas to development and the potential impact on Abuja’s planned urban landscape.

The green-space concerns introduce a separate public-interest dimension to the dispute, although the property’s official planning designation has not been independently confirmed.

Why the Kado Land Dispute Matters

The case highlights several issues relevant to property owners, investors and residents of the Federal Capital Territory.

1. Protection of property under litigation: The dispute raises questions about how contested properties should be handled while judicial proceedings are ongoing.

2. Land allocation and documentation: The competing claims underscore the importance of verifying land titles, lease documents and allocation records before taking possession of a property.

3. Enforcement of development regulations: The alleged demolition raises questions about the authorisation of construction or demolition activities on disputed land.

4. Environmental planning: If the property’s green-area designation is confirmed, the case could also have implications for the preservation of designated green spaces in Abuja.

What Happens Next?

The next major development is the court hearing scheduled for October 2026, according to Onoja.

The outcome of the proceedings could help clarify the competing claims over the property. Meanwhile, the lawyer is seeking intervention from the relevant authorities to prevent further changes to the premises while the dispute remains unresolved.

Key issues to watch include the response of the other party, the status of the police investigation, the FCTA’s position on the alleged allocation and the property’s official planning designation.

Until the relevant documents and claims are examined by the appropriate authorities, the competing accounts remain allegations rather than established findings.