Who Owns Abuja’s Land? Wike Faces Tough Questions Over Massive Allocations
By Matthew Eloyi
The controversy surrounding the reported allocation of 291.01 hectares of land in Giri, Abuja, to eight companies and organisations by the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Nyesom Wike, has reopened an important debate about who truly benefits from the administration of public land in Nigeria’s capital city.
At the heart of the controversy is not merely the size of the land allocated or the identities of the beneficiaries, but the circumstances surrounding the distribution of such an enormous public asset at a time when thousands of ordinary Nigerians are struggling to secure modest residential plots.
Documents reportedly obtained by SaharaReporters indicate that the allocations cover 10 plots in Cadastral Zone E01, Giri, with GI Properties Limited receiving the largest share of approximately 113.19 hectares. Other beneficiaries include Salmond Wave Limited, Unicorn Oil and Gas Limited, International Energy Centre Limited, Adorable Foundation for Educational Development, Alphaseal Business Limited, Linchpin Psychological Services Limited and Total Geospatial Integrated Services Limited.
In total, the eight beneficiaries reportedly received approximately 291.01 hectares, equivalent to about 2.91 million square metres of land.
These figures are staggering, particularly when viewed against the experiences of ordinary Abuja residents who spend years navigating the bureaucracy of land acquisition, often seeking plots of between 250 and 500 square metres. For many, obtaining a residential allocation from the FCT Administration remains an uphill task, characterised by uncertainty, administrative bottlenecks and financial demands.
This contrast raises an uncomfortable but unavoidable question: what determines who gets access to Abuja’s land resources, and on what terms?
Certainly, the FCT Minister has considerable powers under the Land Use Act to administer land, approve allocations and revoke rights of occupancy in accordance with the law. However, the existence of such powers does not remove the obligation to exercise them transparently, fairly and in the overriding interest of the public.
Public authority is not a personal privilege, and the administration of public assets should never become an exercise that benefits a select few without adequate explanation to the citizens whose collective interests are at stake.
A closer examination of the reported allocations reveals further issues deserving public attention. GI Properties Limited received approximately 113.19 hectares for mixed-use comprehensive development, while Salmond Wave Limited was allocated 73.22 hectares for a similar purpose. Unicorn Oil and Gas Limited received two separate allocations measuring 28.30 hectares and 12.04 hectares, bringing its total to 40.34 hectares.
International Energy Centre Limited received approximately 20 hectares, while Adorable Foundation for Educational Development was allocated 30.57 hectares for a proposed college or university.
Alphaseal Business Limited received two commercial plots measuring 4.10 hectares and 4.47 hectares for a shopping complex and petrol filling station, respectively. Linchpin Psychological Services Limited and Total Geospatial Integrated Services Limited received approximately 2.54 hectares and 2.58 hectares.
While these allocations may have legitimate developmental objectives, the FCT Administration owes Nigerians a detailed explanation of the criteria used in selecting the beneficiaries. Were the opportunities publicly advertised? Were competing applications considered? What investment commitments did the beneficiaries make, and what measurable economic benefits will their projects deliver to Abuja residents?
These questions are particularly important because land is among the most valuable public resources in the Federal Capital Territory. Its allocation should be guided by a transparent framework that encourages genuine investment, promotes orderly development and ensures equitable access.
Another issue that deserves scrutiny is the reported preferential pricing extended to Adorable Foundation for Educational Development. According to the allocation documents, the foundation was offered its 30.57 hectares at a premium of ₦100 per square metre, compared with the ₦500 per square metre reportedly charged to several other beneficiaries.
There may be legitimate policy reasons for offering educational institutions concessionary land premiums. Governments routinely provide incentives to encourage investments in education, healthcare and other socially beneficial sectors. However, such concessions must be supported by clear policies, measurable public benefits and enforceable conditions.
The public deserves to know why the foundation qualified for the reduced premium, whether similar concessions are available to other educational investors and what safeguards exist to ensure that the land is used exclusively for the purpose for which it was allocated.
Without such explanations, preferential treatment, however well-intentioned, risks creating the perception that access to valuable public assets depends on connections rather than transparent and consistently applied rules.
Perhaps the most sensitive dimension of the controversy is the allegation that some of the allocated properties may be connected to land belonging to the University of Abuja.
The university’s landholding has become a subject of debate following Wike’s earlier announcement of plans to revoke portions of the more than 11,000 hectares reportedly allocated to the institution.
Defending the minister, his media aide, Lere Olayinka, argued that the university’s landholding was excessive, suggesting that 11,000 hectares could accommodate approximately 220,000 plots of 500 square metres each. He also maintained that the minister possessed the authority to allocate, revoke and reallocate land.
But this argument raises another question: should the future of a university’s land be determined primarily by calculating how many residential plots could be created from it?
A university is not a residential estate. Its land requirements extend beyond immediate academic activities to include future expansion, research centres, laboratories, staff accommodation, student facilities, recreational spaces and other infrastructure necessary for institutional growth.
If the FCT Administration believes that the University of Abuja holds more land than it requires, the responsible approach would be to conduct a transparent assessment in consultation with the institution and other relevant stakeholders. Any decision to recover portions of the land should be supported by clear legal provisions, credible planning considerations and due process.
The minister’s aide has dismissed criticisms of the allocations as emotional, sentimental and sensational, insisting that Wike is exercising powers vested in his office. However, this defence does not sufficiently address the substantive issues surrounding the scale of the allocations, the identities of the beneficiaries, the pricing structure and the alleged connection with university land.
The issue is not whether Wike has the authority to administer land in Abuja. It is whether that authority is being exercised in a manner that inspires public confidence and serves the broader interests of the capital’s residents.
Indeed, the distinction between legality and accountability is fundamental to responsible governance. An administrative decision may fall within the powers of a public official and still deserve scrutiny over its fairness, transparency and consequences.
The allocation documents reportedly require beneficiaries to pay all prescribed rents, fees and charges within 21 days of receiving their offers. They also stipulate that the properties must be developed within two years of the commencement of their rights of occupancy, subject to approved building plans and designated land-use specifications.
Furthermore, beneficiaries are prohibited from selling, transferring, subdividing or subleasing the properties without the necessary ministerial consent. Government officials are also empowered to inspect the properties, with violations potentially attracting revocation of the rights of occupancy.
These conditions are important, but their effectiveness will depend on enforcement. The FCT Administration must demonstrate that the allocations are intended for genuine development rather than speculative acquisition or the accumulation of valuable land for future commercial advantage.
It should therefore make public the relevant development proposals, evidence of payments, valuation assessments, planning approvals and investment commitments submitted by the beneficiaries. Nigerians also deserve periodic updates on compliance with the development conditions.
More importantly, the administration should explain how the projects will contribute to employment generation, infrastructure development, economic diversification and improved living conditions in the Federal Capital Territory.
There is nothing inherently wrong with allocating large parcels of land to companies capable of undertaking major investments. Abuja needs private-sector participation to expand its economic base, attract capital, create jobs and support its growing population.
However, investment promotion must not become a justification for opaque land distribution. The government must demonstrate that the benefits of such allocations extend beyond the corporate interests of the beneficiaries.
This is particularly important in a city where housing affordability remains a major challenge. The FCT Administration cannot ignore the difficulties ordinary residents face in accessing land while distributing millions of square metres to a relatively small number of organisations without providing sufficient public explanations.
Wike’s administration has attracted attention for its aggressive approach to infrastructure development and urban renewal. But the success of governance cannot be measured only by roads constructed, structures demolished or projects commissioned. It must also be measured by the fairness with which public resources are managed and the degree of accountability demonstrated by those entrusted with public office.
The minister should therefore recognise that questions surrounding the Giri allocations are not necessarily an attack on his administration. They are legitimate demands for transparency over a resource that belongs to the Nigerian public.
If the allocations were made in accordance with established procedures and are genuinely intended to promote economic development, there should be no difficulty in publishing the relevant records and explaining the decisions.
Ultimately, Abuja’s land resources should serve the interests of the nation, not merely those of corporations, politically influential individuals or privileged institutions. The FCT Minister is a custodian of public authority, not the private owner of the capital’s land.
The central question, therefore, is not simply who has the power to allocate Abuja’s land, but who benefits from the way that power is exercised.
Until Wike provides convincing answers to the questions surrounding the 291.01 hectares allocated to eight organisations, the controversy will remain a test of his administration’s commitment to transparency, fairness and accountable governance. Nigerians deserve to know whether Abuja’s land is being distributed in the public interest or whether access to one of the country’s most valuable assets is increasingly becoming a privilege reserved for the well-connected.