In a fiery response to recent land disputes in Abuja, activist lawyer, Deji Adeyanju, has sharply criticized the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Nyesom Wike. Adeyanju called Wike a “land grabber” and stated that he was “too small” to stop landowners from reclaiming properties taken from them.
This attack comes after Wike’s recent actions in the FCT, where he has been involved in demolitions of what he deems “illegal structures” in various estates and shanties in the nation’s capital. The demolitions are part of an ongoing effort to clear what Wike claims are security threats and encroachments on government land.
Adeyanju did not hold back in his condemnation, taking to social media to voice his opinion. In a post on X, he wrote: “All the land the land grabber is stealing in Abuja will be collected back. Even Northerners who were FCT Ministers couldn’t steal Abuja land, is it now villager of Obio/Akpor wearing fake designers and looking like a clown that will steal Abuja land? Wike is too small.”
Adeyanju’s remarks are particularly pointed, as he references Wike’s roots in Obio/Akpor, a local government area in Rivers State. The lawyer suggests that Wike, whom he refers to as a “villager,” is ill-equipped to successfully take control of Abuja’s valuable land, even as his predecessors, who were from the Northern part of Nigeria, failed to do so.
Wike’s actions as FCT Minister have recently attracted significant public backlash. Many have accused him of using the demolitions as a cover for land allocation deals that benefit his close allies. These actions have stirred up concerns over the fairness of land distribution and allegations of corruption within the FCTA.
In response to the criticisms, Wike has remained defiant, insisting that his efforts to clear “illegal structures” are in the best interest of Abuja and its residents. He has vowed to continue his demolition operations, despite the protests from affected landowners and civil rights activists.
During a recent press conference in Abuja, Wike addressed the backlash head-on. “Let me use this opportunity to tell Nigerians that we are not afraid of blackmail,” Wike stated. “In fact, you can’t be in this kind of position and not be blackmailed, particularly as regards Abuja. There are so many land grabbers, and some of us have come to put our foot down.”
Wike emphasized his determination to face the consequences of his actions, adding: “Let heaven fall; it’s even better that heaven comes down now so that we will not be fasting to go to heaven.” His defiant statement underscores his commitment to what he claims is a necessary course of action for the future of Abuja.
Despite Wike’s bravado, Adeyanju’s criticism suggests a deeper frustration with the manner in which land issues in Abuja are being handled. The activist lawyer’s use of social media to make his accusations reveals the growing public dissatisfaction with the situation.
For many, the idea of “land grabbers” in Abuja is a touchy subject, given the city’s unique status as the nation’s capital and the valuable properties it holds. Adeyanju’s remark about “reclaiming” the land lost to what he describes as Wike’s theft is a direct challenge to the authority of the FCT Minister.
Adeyanju’s comments also underscore a broader sentiment of distrust among many Abuja residents and landowners. With the growing trend of demolitions and land reallocations, some have expressed fear that these actions may pave the way for increased political influence in land deals, at the expense of rightful landowners.
While Wike continues to defend his position, claiming that his efforts are motivated by security concerns and the need for a cleaner, more organized city, his critics believe the true motives lie in benefiting his cronies and consolidating political power in the capital.
The back-and-forth between the FCT Minister and activists like Adeyanju reflects the deep divisions over how land issues should be managed in Abuja. As these tensions rise, the question remains: will Wike’s tough stance succeed in bringing order to the city, or will it lead to more accusations of land theft and political favoritism?
