Lawyer Raises Concerns Over EFCC’s Role In Abuja Land Dispute

An Abuja-based legal practitioner, Barrister Alexander Oketa of Alex Oketa Chambers, has expressed concern over what he described as the involvement of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) in an ongoing land ownership dispute in the Federal Capital Territory.

Speaking to journalists in Abuja on Tuesday, Oketa said the disagreement is between Jona Brothers Construction Ltd., his client, and Chief Michael Adeojo, noting that the matter is already the subject of multiple court judgments at the FCT High Court.

He stated that the property in question, located at Plot 680–689 Mabushi, Abuja, has been the subject of four court decisions reportedly delivered in favour of Jona Brothers Construction Ltd.

Despite this, he claimed the EFCC has continued to show interest in the matter, including visiting the site and raising concerns about construction activities.

According to Oketa, the dispute is a civil matter relating to land ownership and, in his view, does not fall under the purview of the EFCC, as the property has not been classified as proceeds of financial crime.

He referenced decisions delivered by Justices S.U. Bature, Binta Mohammed and Ibrahim Mohammed of the FCT High Court, as well as a ruling by Justice Modupe Osho Adebiyi, which, he said, addressed various applications and charges related to the property.

He added that an appeal earlier filed at the Court of Appeal was subsequently withdrawn.

Oketa also stated that while a suit was still pending at the FCT High Court, an ex parte order for temporary forfeiture of the property was obtained at the Federal High Court.

He argued that the order was inappropriate, given existing judgments from the FCT High Court.

He further claimed that a criminal charge filed against his client before Justice Modupe Osho Adebiyi was dismissed, with costs awarded.

Oketa urged all parties, including officials of the EFCC, to respect subsisting court decisions and allow the legal process to run its course.

The EFCC has yet to issue a public response to the lawyer’s claims.