News

FCT Residents Panic, Kick As Wike Threatens To Pull Down 6000 Buildings

Published

2 years ago

August 23, 2023

Editor

Residents of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, have frowned on the position of the minister of FCT to demolish no fewer than 6000 buildings in the city, saying they would not support any indiscriminate destruction of properties.

The Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Nyesom Wike, who dropped the hint on resuming office on Monday, vowed that all illegal buildings distorting the Abuja master plan would be pulled down.

Wike vowed to flatten all illegal buildings even if they belonged to a minister or an ambassador.

But speaking with newsmen, a Kubwa resident, Tola Anya-Nuga declared that Wike’s threat came at a time when citizens were going through a lot and the country’s economy was not doing well.

He stated, “The truth is that no one will ever support the demolition of properties but if the areas will affect or have continued to affect the citizens such as houses on canals or under high tension wires, demolishing such places is a good idea.

“Wike’s speech came at the wrong time because he presented a heart-breaking speech. It can give one hypertension. The country is tense and things are very expensive. Wike and the FG should allow the poor to breathe. He should not have talked about demolition on his first day in office.”

Another resident, Abayomi Samuel, lamented the hardship in the country, adding that the government should look for ways to manage the planned demolitions.

Samuel stated, “Whatever Wike meant by restoring the Abuja Master plan or demolishing people’s property if it is against the will of the people. I can never support that.

“If Wike is talking about the illegal structures in metropolitan places in Abuja, the government should see how it can manage the situation especially if land-owners or house-owners got their certificates from FCDA and others.

“But when we talk about satellite towns and villages like Jikwoyi, Kubwa, etc, what does Wike want to demolish? People are struggling day and night.”

A Kuje resident, and commercial motorcyclist, who simply identified himself as Michael, said though he did not have a house that could be demolished, he hoped that the Wike-led FCT administration would not revoke his land, which he bought from Abuja indigenes.

He said, “I haven’t started building, I just bought land for keeps from an indigene. I didn’t buy from the FCTA, I bought from the indigenes, and it is not every land or house from indigenes that will be revoked or demolished.

“There are some places that have been revoked. So, if they have been revoked, they would likely not touch those places. But for mine, it hasn’t been revoked, I just bought it and I’m trusting God that it is safe.”

Alhaji Kassim said the demolition would make life more difficult for the poor, adding that the government should first create an avenue for the survival of those whose houses may be demolished.

“Instead of looking for where to develop, Wike is looking for where to demolish. We have so many places that are not developed, let him do it first. And then, let them create a place where they can push people to.

“Even, if they want to demolish, if truly the government wants to work well, first create an avenue where they (people) can survive, then you can make a correction; if truly you are for correction,’’ he admonished.

A Kabusa resident, Chinedu Nwachukuwu noted, “Being his first day in office, the minister should have said things that would make residents glad to have him, rather than issuing threats. People living in Abuja are citizens of Nigeria, and their dignity needs to be respected by the government.’’

Stephen Aghedo, who also lives in Kabusa, warned, “This isn’t Rivers State where Wike ruled with impunity during his time as governor. This is the FCT, and he needs to be careful with his utterances and actions.”

Ade Ogundiran, a resident of Dogongada, said, “We only hope that the minister would do everything within the ambit of the law and not take irrational decisions that’ll affect residents and impede the development of the FCT.

“Mr Wike is known for talking too much, however, he should remember that there are people who bought their lands through the proper channels, and destroying properties built on such lands is illegal.”

But Juliet Ndichie expressed concern regarding the deteriorating status of the Federal Capital Territory as a modern city.

According to her, Abuja has become a safe haven for criminals, leading to a rise in various nefarious activities that pose a threat to its residents.

Ndichie, who lives in Dawaki, asked the new administration to tackle crime and make the city safe.

Martha Ibrahim, who stays in Lugbe, expressed support for Wike’s move to restore the master plan, arguing that it is in the best interest of the inhabitants.

On her part, Fatima Farouq said, “If Wike follows the Masterplan for the FCT, it will be for the growth and development of the city. It may seem difficult now, but in the long run, we will appreciate it.

“Abuja was not like this and the way people are building houses anyhow, if care is not taken, we may not be able to control it, and it will be a shame to us as a nation.”

The Treasurer of the Nigerian Institute of Building, Lagos Chapter, Philips Ayotunde, endorsed the move to sanitise the FCT but cautioned against selective enforcement of the law and witch-hunt of opposition party members.

He said, “The question is if they would not be selective in their approach because that has often been the norm in Nigeria. Politicians often go after their political rivals. If only they would embrace fairness, justice, and transparency.

“I support the removal of buildings on development of green areas and removal of buildings without approvals. But they should not be selective in their approach.

“When you apply the law on those you are seeing as political rivals and the same law is exempted on your favourites, it would not result in fairness.”

They appealed to Wike not to worsen hardship in the country.

News

Lagos Govt Gives Computer Village Traders Ultimatum To Relocate To Katangowa

Published

27 minutes ago

September 24, 2025

Editor

The Lagos State Government has given traders at the popular Computer Village in Ikeja an 18-month deadline to move to a new permanent site at Katangowa, in the Agbado/Oke-Odo Local Council Development Area.

The Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Physical Planning and Urban Development, Gbolahan Oki, disclosed this during a stakeholders’ engagement with market leaders and traders on Tuesday.

According to him, the state government has provided the necessary infrastructure and facilities at the Katangowa site to ensure a conducive business environment once the relocation takes effect.

“The government wants your cooperation to ensure the relocation comes to pass. The time is now. We have to make the project a reality. The relocation period is 18 months,” Oki said.

He explained that Computer Village currently sits on land originally designated as a residential area, which over time was converted into a bustling commercial hub without formal approval from the government.

Oki also revealed that plans to move traders from Ikeja to Katangowa have been in the works since 2006 but were stalled due to delays in completing the new site.

Emphasizing Governor Babajide Sanwo-Olu’s commitment to inclusive governance, he noted that the stakeholders’ meeting was convened to carry traders along in the government’s plans.

“The governor is passionate about infrastructure development and the welfare of Lagosians. Katangowa has been designated as the permanent site for this market. It sits on 15 hectares of land, well-planned and strategically located near essential resources for your businesses.

“The present location in Ikeja was never meant to serve as a trading hub. What we are offering at Katangowa is a structured market environment that supports growth while addressing environmental and urban planning concerns. We want to work with you and jointly plan this relocation,” Oki said.

News

Ooni’s Palace Slams Oluwo Over ‘Ife Not Yoruba Origin’ Claim

Published

6 hours ago

September 24, 2025

Editor

The palace of the Ooni of Ife on Tuesday slammed the Oluwo of Iwo, Oba Abdulrosheed Akanbi, over his claim that Ile-Ife is not the origin of the Yoruba people.

Reacting to the comments, the Ooni’s spokesperson, Moses Olafare, dismissed the statement, saying, “No reasonable person will react to Oluwo’s comments.”

Oba Akanbi, known for his controversial views, had in a video posted on his Facebook page while conferring a chieftaincy title in his palace, insisted that “Ile-Ife has no Yoruba culture.”

Flanked by his chiefs, the Iwo monarch argued that the language spoken in Ile-Ife — widely regarded as the cradle of the Yoruba race — differed from mainstream Yoruba. He also questioned the use of certain expressions.

“Ife is not the origin of the Yoruba race. Those people don’t speak our language. Their language is different. They refer to God as Eledumare, and there is nothing like Eledumare in the Yoruba language. What we have is Olodumare.

“Ife people will always say Olofin. If you ask them the meaning, they will tell you it means the owner of the palace. But in Yoruba, that is Alaafin. Ile-Ife has no Yoruba culture.

“I am the Arole Olodumare because I am here to tell you the true history. Iwo is where you can get the real history that was not even documented,” he said, stressing his determination to preserve his version of history.

Debates over the origin of the Yoruba and the authority of monarchs to confer titles have long been contentious.

In August, The PUNCH reported a similar face-off between the Ooni of Ife, Oba Adeyeye Ogunwusi, and the Alaafin of Oyo, Oba Akeem Owoade, over the title of Okanlomo of Yorubaland, allegedly conferred on Ibadan businessman Chief Dotun Sanusi by the Ooni.

The Alaafin, through his media aide Bode Durojaiye, insisted no traditional ruler other than him had the authority to bestow a title covering the entire Yorubaland. He issued a 48-hour ultimatum to the Ooni to revoke the title or “face the consequences.”

In response, the Ooni’s spokesperson, Olafare, dismissed the ultimatum, saying the monarch had chosen to leave the issue “in the court of public opinion.”

“We cannot dignify the ‘undignifyable’ with an official response. We leave the matter to the public court of opinion, as it is already being treated. Let’s focus on narratives that unite us rather than those capable of dividing us. No press release, please. Forty-eight hours, my foot!” he wrote on Facebook.

News

[OPINION] Rivers: The Futility Of Power And The Illusion Of Victory

Published

9 hours ago

September 24, 2025

Editor

By Israel Adebiyi

Power is a strange thing. To some, it is a crown that dazzles; to others, it is a sword that conquers. Yet history, both ancient and modern, is replete with reminders that power is fleeting, fragile, and often fatal to those who cling to it without wisdom. Nigeria’s Rivers State has, in recent months, provided a theatre where this truth has played out in its rawest form, a play in which the actors ranged from elected governors to godfathers in high places, from lawmakers turned pawns to a weary citizenry who bore the bruises of political combat.

As you may have learnt, the democratically elected Governor Siminalayi Fubara is back in the saddle. What a traumatising six months it must have been for the man who thought being the Chief Security Officer of his state truly makes him the man in charge. What a tormenting time it must have been for the legislature, those who, entrusted with making laws, would rather sink the ship of state than allow Fubara to sail. And what excruciating experience it must have been for the people of Rivers themselves: to have their choice nearly swapped for a civilian in khaki, to watch their lives held hostage by political gladiators in a power struggle that never had their welfare at heart.

At the centre of this drama stood the godfather, one who straddles Abuja and Port Harcourt, ministering to the Federal Capital Territory while seeking to lord it over Rivers, unchallenged. His triumphs and setbacks are well-documented, but the bigger question remains: what has the political elite learnt from all this? From potential godsons, to godfathers, to supporters, to the rest of us, the truth is painfully clear, no one wins in a state of anarchy, not even the chest-beating King Kong.

The Rivers imbroglio reinforces a timeless principle: governance does not happen in chaos. The seat of power may be occupied, but when the instruments of state are weaponised against one another, the business of the people suffers. Schools do not function, hospitals languish, investments are scared away, and trust in government crumbles. A peaceful atmosphere is the precondition for governance, for no policy, no matter how well-crafted, can thrive in the soil of instability.

In this sense, what happened in Rivers is not new. History shows us that the vanity of power games leaves behind a trail of ruins. Rome, mighty and invincible, crumbled not because its armies lost their strength but because its leaders indulged in intrigues, conspiracies, and betrayal, weakening the republic from within. In Africa, the ghosts of Liberia’s civil war and Sierra Leone’s dark decade still whisper lessons of how political egos, once unchecked, descend into rivers of blood where the people are the ultimate casualties.

Even in more stable democracies, we see shades of this futility. Recall the Watergate scandal in the United States: an overreach of power that forced President Nixon’s resignation, not because America lacked laws, but because one man believed his political survival was above the rule of law. In Zimbabwe, Robert Mugabe’s prolonged hold on power may have begun with promises of liberation but ended with economic collapse and national despair. In all these, the lesson is the same: unchecked power, exercised without restraint, consumes itself.

The real victims of Rivers’ crisis are not the gladiators in high office; they will always find soft landings. The true casualties are the people, the market woman in Port Harcourt whose business was disrupted by endless protests and palpable fears, the civil servant whose progress and commitment are beclouded by uncertainties, the student whose classroom leaks under the rain because the funds for renovation are trapped in political crossfire.

What is often forgotten in the heat of power play is that governance is not an abstract exercise; it is the daily bread of the people. When leaders quarrel, roads go untarred, hospitals go unequipped, and children go unfed. To reduce governance to a chessboard of egos is to mortgage the people’s welfare for vanity. This, tragically, is the recurring story in Nigeria’s democratic experiment.

Philosophers have long wrestled with the meaning of power. Shakespeare, in Macbeth, captured it as “a walking shadow, a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard no more.” The story of Rivers is a fresh Nigerian adaptation of this drama. For months, power appeared to belong to one, then another, and then another still. Yet in the end, it was revealed that no one truly wielded power in its purest sense, because power without legitimacy, without the consent of the governed, and without the peace to implement vision, is no power at all.

The futility of the Rivers crisis holds lessons for Nigeria as a whole. Across our federation, godfatherism continues to haunt governance. From Lagos to Kano, from Anambra to Oyo, the tussle between political benefactors and their protégés has become a recurring decimal. Rarely do these battles end in progress for the people; more often than not, they end in paralysis.

The comparison need not be far-fetched. Look at Kenya, where post-election violence in 2007 consumed more than 1,000 lives and displaced hundreds of thousands. The fault line was political ego, the refusal to let the people’s will stand unchallenged. It took the Kofi Annan-led mediation to restore peace. In the Democratic Republic of Congo, decades of instability trace back to leaders who personalised power, treating the state as property and the people as pawns.

Rivers may not have descended into outright war, but the undertones of instability remind us that democracy is not guaranteed; it must be guarded. When politicians play roulette with the rule of law, they court a descent into chaos that ultimately swallows everyone.

The Rivers episode should compel us to reflect on the foundations of Nigeria’s democracy. For too long, politics has been driven not by institutions but by personalities. Our allegiance is more to godfathers than to constitutions, more to individuals than to principles. Yet sustainable governance is only possible when the rule of law, not the whims of men, governs the game.

What does this mean in practice? It means state assemblies must not be reduced to errand boys of powerful interests. It means governors must respect their oaths of office, governing for all, not just for loyalists. It means party structures must operate with transparency, giving room for dissent without retribution. Above all, it means citizens must rise in defence of their democracy, insisting that their mandate cannot be traded on the altar of ego.

The Rivers drama may be easing, but the scars remain. It was a sobering reminder that power, when divorced from service, becomes poison. That democracy, when stripped of rule of law, becomes anarchy. That in the final analysis, no one truly wins when the people lose.

From the godfathers to the godsons, from the lawmakers to the electorate, we must all acknowledge a shared truth: we are losers when power games eclipse governance. The real triumph is not in who sits in Government House, but in whether that House delivers schools, hospitals, jobs, and peace.

Let Rivers be a lesson to Nigeria: that power is not an end in itself, but a means to service. That peace is not weakness, but strength. And that the greatest legacy any leader can leave is not monuments of ego, but institutions that outlast them.

For if Rivers has taught us anything, it is that governance cannot happen in a state of anarchy, and the futility of power is revealed when its pursuit leaves the people broken. Let us, therefore, rise to build a democracy where power serves the people, not the other way round.