FCT Minister Under Fire Over Fresh Allocation on Leased Property

By Matthew Eloyi

The Minister of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Nyesom Wike, has come under scrutiny over the alleged allocation of a parcel of land in Kado District, Abuja, to a private company despite claims that the property was already covered by a subsisting lease granted by the FCT Administration.

The controversy has intensified following the alleged destruction of property belonging to Hongye International Nigeria Limited on the disputed land, with the company’s lawyer, Matthew Onoja, accusing the authorities of disregarding his client’s existing interest and questioning the circumstances surrounding the subsequent allocation.

Onoja, who spoke with journalists at the site of the destroyed property, specifically questioned how the FCT Administration could grant a fresh right of occupancy over land allegedly leased to his client for 35 years, raising concerns about the legality of the allocation and the protection of property rights.

The dispute, now before the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, centres on Plot 2135, Cadastral Zone B09, Kado District, which Hongye International Nigeria Limited claims was leased to it by the Federal Capital Development Authority (FCDA) under an agreement dated September 30, 2014.

The company alleges that a portion of the property was subsequently excised and allocated to Freda Apparel Limited, whose sole shareholder and director is Fareedah Olawunmi Abdullahi-Suleiman.

The claimant is asking the court to invalidate the allocation, arguing that its lease remains valid and has not been revoked.

The allegations place the FCT Administration’s land-allocation process under scrutiny, particularly over whether the disputed allocation was made in disregard of an existing leasehold interest.

Questions over Wike’s land allocation

At the heart of the dispute is the alleged grant of a right of occupancy to Freda Apparel Limited over Plot 2136, measuring approximately 9,372.79 square metres, which Hongye International Nigeria Limited claims falls within its leased property.

Court documents indicate that the claimant’s interest in Plot 2135 arose from a land allocation under the FCT’s Land Swap Public-Private Partnership programme, followed by a lease agreement executed by the FCDA on September 30, 2014.

The company maintains that the lease covers approximately 2.78 hectares and remains in force.

Onoja questioned the decision to grant another party an interest in land that his client claims was already subject to a valid lease.

“How can the FCT minister give a right of occupancy in respect of a property where there is already a sitting tenant, a tenant of the FCT administration itself?” he asked.

The lawyer argued that the alleged allocation raises fundamental questions about the administration’s handling of the property and the protection of existing interests in land under its control.

He insisted that the lease had neither been withdrawn nor revoked and that the relevant documents were available in the court records.

“The lease is still subsisting. It has not been withdrawn. All the documents are available. Our processes, which are filed in court, they are there. They are public documents,” he said.

The claimant is seeking a declaration that it remains the lawful lessee of Plot 2135 and that the alleged creation of Plot 2136 and its allocation to Freda Apparel Limited violated its existing rights.

It is also asking the court to set aside the right of occupancy granted to the company.

The court is yet to rule on the validity of the competing interests or establish whether the allocation was made in violation of the claimant’s lease.

Demolition allegation deepens controversy

The controversy took a further turn following the alleged destruction of Hongye International Nigeria Limited’s property at the disputed site.

Onoja accused those claiming ownership of the land of using construction equipment and vehicles to destroy his client’s property despite the ongoing litigation.

He said the vehicles and equipment at the scene bore the name of Abdul Val Limited, a company he described as being involved in construction and real estate development.

“The trucks, the vehicles they brought, the equipment, the label we see on them is Abdul Val Limited, that is the name of the company,” he said.

The lawyer identified Freda Apparel Limited and Abdullahi-Suleiman as the parties claiming rights over the land and alleged that the destruction occurred despite the pending court case and an ongoing police investigation.

He described the incident as a blatant disregard for the rule of law, insisting that no court order had authorised the destruction of his client’s property.

The alleged demolition has further heightened concerns about the circumstances surrounding the disputed allocation and the actions taken by the parties claiming ownership.

Onoja argued that the FCT Administration should be held to account for any decision that could undermine an existing lease or expose a lawful occupier to the loss of property.

The allegations against Freda Apparel Limited, Abdullahi-Suleiman and Abdul Val Limited have not been independently established.

Court battle over alleged encroachment

Hongye International Nigeria Limited has instituted a suit at the High Court of the FCT, Abuja Judicial Division, challenging the alleged allocation and seeking protection for its leasehold interest.

The defendants include the FCT Minister, the FCT Administration, the Director of Land Administration, the Abuja Metropolitan Management Council, the FCDA, Freda Apparel Limited and Abdullahi-Suleiman.

The claimant alleges that Plot 2136 was carved out of its leased property and allocated to Freda Apparel Limited through a right of occupancy dated May 14, 2026.

It contends that the action amounted to an encroachment on its existing interest and is asking the court to declare the allocation invalid.

The company is also seeking a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with its interest in the property.

In addition to the declaratory and injunctive reliefs, Hongye International Nigeria Limited is claiming N500 million in general damages, N10 million in costs and N50 million in professional fees.

It is also seeking 10 per cent post-judgment interest on the monetary awards until full payment.

The claims are yet to be determined by the court.

Pending injunction, but no restraining order

Onoja disclosed that the case was scheduled to come up on October 20, 2026, while acknowledging that the court had not issued an order restraining the defendants from taking action on the disputed land.

He said, however, that his client had filed an application seeking an injunction to prevent all parties from taking steps that could prejudice their respective interests.

“There is no restraining order, but we have a pending application to restrain all the parties for an injunction of the court to restrain all the parties from taking any action that will in any way disadvantage the right or interest of any of the parties in this particular issue,” he said.

The lawyer alleged that the defendants had been served with the court processes but had failed to respond.

He argued that the parties should have maintained the status quo and allowed the court to determine the competing claims rather than take actions capable of affecting the property.

Onoja said the pending case should have prompted restraint, particularly from the authorities responsible for land administration in the FCT.

The absence of a restraining order, however, means the court had not formally prohibited the parties from taking action at the time of the lawyer’s statement.

Police urged to investigate FCT land allocation

The lawyer said his client’s petition to the police sought an investigation into the circumstances surrounding the alleged allocation of the property to Freda Apparel Limited and the subsequent destruction of assets at the site.

He questioned how a new right of occupancy could have been granted over land that his client claimed was already subject to a valid lease.

“Our petition to the police is that there should be an investigation into the conduct of the defendant, particularly Freda Apparel, who claimed to have been given this right in respect of the land belonging to our client,” he said.

Onoja also called for an investigation into the alleged encroachment and the role of those involved in the destruction of the property.

He maintained that the police had a responsibility to investigate possible criminal conduct and ensure that the dispute did not lead to a breakdown of law and order.

The lawyer further argued that the FCT Administration should ensure that its land-allocation procedures respect existing legal interests and that disputes are resolved through lawful channels.

There was no information in the materials made available to journalists indicating whether the police had commenced an investigation or whether the FCT Administration had responded to the allegations.

Lawyer warns against self-help

Onoja warned that allowing individuals and companies to enforce competing claims to land through force or destruction of property could undermine the rule of law.

He argued that disputes over ownership and possession should be resolved through the courts rather than unilateral actions.

“If everybody were to take the law into their hands and do what they feel is right in their own sight at every opportunity, will there not be anarchy in this country? Will it not lead to chaos? Will it not lead to the loss of lives and properties, quantum destruction?” he asked.

He said the alleged destruction of his client’s property, despite the pending litigation, raised serious concerns about the protection of property rights and the enforcement of lawful procedures.

The lawyer also called on the police to ensure that all parties respected the judicial process and refrained from actions capable of escalating the dispute.

FCT Administration faces questions

The Kado land dispute has brought renewed attention to the responsibilities of the FCT Administration in managing land allocations and protecting existing interests in property under its control.

At issue is whether the alleged allocation of Plot 2136 to Freda Apparel Limited was consistent with the terms of the lease claimed by Hongye International Nigeria Limited and whether the procedures followed complied with applicable legal requirements.

The case also raises questions about the circumstances in which a fresh right of occupancy could be granted over land allegedly covered by an existing lease.

While the claimant insists that its lease remains valid, the defendants’ positions and the legal basis for the disputed allocation have yet to be established through the court proceedings.

The FCT Minister and the other defendants had not responded to the allegations in the materials made available to journalists.

The case is expected to return to court on October 20, 2026, when the competing claims and pending applications may come up for consideration.

Until the court determines the dispute, the validity of the competing interests and the legality of the disputed allocation remain unresolved.