By Babayemi Olaniyan and Geraldine C. Nzulumike
Introduction
The recent confrontation between the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Nyesom Wike, and personnel of the Nigerian Navy over a parcel of land reportedly linked to a former Chief of Naval Staff[1] has once again drawn attention to Nigeria’s enduring challenges in land administration and ownership.
While naval officers maintained that they were acting on official instructions to guard and occupy the property, the Minister questioned the legitimacy of their presence, demanding proof of formal allocation or title. His statement that armed personnel cannot intimidate civil authorities underscored a deeper tension between possession and lawful ownership, and between institutional power and constitutional process.
The incident raises critical questions about the scope of the FCT Minister’s authority, the role of the military in civil affairs, and the legal standards for proving land ownership in Nigeria’s Federal Capital Territory.
Powers of the FCT Minister Over Land
Under Section 297(2) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), the ownership of all lands comprised in the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Abuja, shall vest in the Government of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.[2] The President of Nigeria exercises ultimate authority over these lands, delegating administrative powers over allocation and management to the Minister of the FCT.[3]
By the provisions of the FCT Act[4] and the Land Use Act,[5] the FCT Minister has the power to:
- Grant, revoke, or renew statutory rights of occupancy,[6]
- Regulate land use and development,[7] and
- Enforce compliance with approved layouts, zoning, and planning regulations.[8]
These powers are subject to due process. Any revocation of land rights must be justified by overriding public interest and must include notice and compensation in line with Section 44 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) and Sections 28 and 29 of the Land Use Act.
In the context of the recent dispute, the Minister’s request for evidence of formal land allocation documents reflects the legal requirement for proof of ownership. However, administrative actions by the Minister or the Federal Capital Territory Administration (FCTA) regulate land use and formalise rights of occupancy, but they do not, by themselves, resolve contested claims of ownership.
Where ownership is disputed, the primary legal recourse for determining or declaring land title is judicial adjudication. Although, alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanisms, such as arbitration or mediation, may be employed in other land-related disputes where appropriate.
Duties and Powers of the Nigerian Navy
The Nigerian Navy, as part of the Armed Forces of Nigeria, derives its mandate from Section 217(2) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) and Section 1(4)(a) of the Armed Forces Act,[9] which outlines the military’s role in defending the country and supporting civil authorities when called upon. Its primary responsibilities include:
- Enforcing and assisting in co-ordinating the enforcement of all customs, laws, including anti-bunkering, fishery and immigration laws of Nigeria at sea,
- Promoting, co-ordinating and enforcing safety regulations in the territorial waters and the Exclusive Economic Zone of Nigeria, and
- Enforcing and assisting in co-ordinating the enforcement of national and international maritime laws ascribed to or acceded to by Nigeria.
While naval personnel may be assigned to protect certain assets or installations, the exercise of military authority in civil land disputes is limited and must align with legal directives or orders from competent authorities. Military involvement in land or property matters typically occurs in a supportive or protective capacity, rather than as a mechanism to assert ownership or enforce civil property rights.
Possession Versus Proof of Ownership
In land disputes, possession and ownership are not the same. Possession may create a presumption of ownership, but it does not, on its own, constitute conclusive proof of title. In Akunyili v Ejidike & Ors,[10] the Supreme Court affirmed that “possession is 9/10 (nine tenths) of the law,” meaning that possession is valid against all the world except one who can prove a better title. However, a person or entity in possession of land must still establish a lawful right or grant to substantiate their claim when ownership is in question.
It is also important to distinguish between occupation and possession. While occupation refers to physical presence or use of land, possession carries a legal implication of control and an intention to exercise rights over the property (animus possidendi – the intent to possess). See the case of Oshafunmi & Anor v Adepoju & Anor.[11] Thus, one may occupy land without being in lawful possession, and possession itself does not amount to ownership without proof of title.
Under Nigerian law, acts of possession, such as fencing, building, or occupying land, can support an ownership claim,[12] particularly where no competing title exists. However, where such possession is challenged, the burden of proof rests on the party asserting ownership, as the law is settled that he who asserts must prove (Chukwu v Okoh (2016) LPELR-42117(CA)).
The courts have also laid down five recognised methods of proving ownership to land, as established in the locus classicus of Idundun & Ors v Okumagba:[13]
- Traditional evidence,
- Production of documents of title,
- Acts of ownership such as selling, leasing or renting,
- Acts of long possession, or
- Proof of possession of connected or adjacent land.
Accordingly, while possession may serve as an important indicator of control, it is the existence of a valid title that ultimately determines ownership. In disputes such as the recent FCT controversy, the issue is not just who occupies or possesses the land, but who has the legally recognised right to do so.
When disputes of this nature escalate into public confrontation, as witnessed in the recent exchange between the FCT Minister and military personnel, the issue extends beyond property rights to questions of conduct, civility, and the lawful exercise of authority.
Abusive Conduct and the Law
The public rebuke by the Minister and the ensuing verbal confrontation highlight another dimension of the incident: the limits of acceptable conduct in public office. Under Section 399 of the Penal Code Act, the use of insulting or abusive language likely to cause breach of the public peace constitutes an offence punishable by imprisonment or fine. Likewise, Section 264 of the Penal Code Act criminalises assault or the use of force against another person.
Although such encounters are sometimes politically minimised, they underscore how emotional or confrontational exchanges in the course of official duties can undermine public decorum and institutional respect. Ultimately, civility and restraint in the exercise of authority are hallmarks of lawful governance and respect for the rule of law.
Lessons on the Rule of Law and Institutional Discipline
The incident between the FCT Minister and the Naval Officer reflects broader questions about governance, accountability, and respect for institutional boundaries. Incidents of this nature test not only the strength of Nigeria’s rule of law, but also the maturity of its institutions in managing conflict within lawful limits. It underscores the need for:
- Institutional restraint, professionalism, and mutual respect among civil and military authorities,
- Proper documentation and transparency in land administration to prevent overlapping claims and misuse of power, and
- Respect for due process and human dignity, even in moments of disagreement or enforcement.
The rule of law is not only about the correctness of legal authority but also how that authority is exercised. Land ownership in Nigeria must rest on a documented title and procedural fairness, not on occupation, influence, or intimidation. In the end, the strength of public institutions lies not in their power to act, but in their discipline, restraint, and accountability to the law and the people they serve.
Conclusion
The confrontation between the FCT Minister and the Nigerian Navy personnel may appear, on the surface, as a dispute over land, but its deeper significance lies in what it reveals about institutional responsibility and respect for due process in governance. It exposes the persistent gaps between authority and accountability, as well as between possession and lawful ownership of land.
For the Federal Capital Territory, where land is held in trust by the government for the nation, disputes of this nature call for greater clarity, transparency, and documentation in land administration. Beyond administrative and legal processes, they also demand a culture of civility and respect for lawful channels of redress.
In conclusion, the episode serves as a reminder that the rule of law requires discipline from those who wield authority and trust from those who are governed. Nigeria’s democratic and institutional progress depends not on who wins a public confrontation, but on whether the law remains the final arbiter. When institutions operate within their lawful limit and uphold civility even in conflict, they reinforce the foundations of good governance.
Lehi Attorneys is a full-service intermediary law firm with a strong focus on helping clients deliver on their tasks by providing legal services across various jurisdictions. We have carved out a niche by providing expert advice in the commercial sector, including Intellectual Property, Real Estate, Trade Law and Policy, Corporate Law, Health and Pharmaceuticals, as well as Media and Entertainment. Further information about the firm is available at www.lehiattorneys.org
DISCLAIMER
This is a publication of Lehi Attorneys solely for educational and information purposes and is not meant to serve as legal advice. For more information, contact Lehi Attorneys at:
www.lehiattorneys.com
info@lehiattorneys.org
[1] Melissa Enoch and Boluwatife Enome, ‘Wike Clashes With Soldiers In Abuja, Accuses Military Officer Of Land Grabbing, Says He Won’t Be Intimidated,’ Arise News 11 Nov 2025 <https://www.arise.tv/wike-clashes-with-soldiers-in-abuja-accuses-military-officer-of-land-grabbing-says-he-wont-be-intimidated/> accessed 13 November 2025
[2] See also Madu v Madu (2008) LPELR-1806(SC) pp 34 – 35 paras B-A
[3] Michael Ayuba, ‘Abuja; Land Availability, Challenges And Mismanagement,’ The Nigeria Lawyer 4 December 2020 <https://thenigerialawyer.com/abuja-land-availability-challenges-and-mismanagement/> accessed 13 November 2025
[4] Federal Capital Territory Act Cap. 503 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 1990
[5] Land Use Act 1978
[6] Sections 13 and 18 FCT Act and Sections 5 and 28 Land Use Act
[7] Section 4 FCT Act and Section 5 Land Use Act
[8] Sections 4 and 8 FCT Act and Section 11 Land Use Act
[9] Section 1(4)(a) Armed Forces Act Cap A20 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004
[10] Akunyili v Ejidike & Ors (1996) LPELR-395(SC)
[11] Oshafunmi & Anor v Adepoju & Anor (2014) LPELR-23073(CA)
[12] See the case of Shwarbaka v Gofwan (2019) LPELR-47070(CA) where the court that a person in possession is prima facie deemed to be the owner of the land
[13] Idundun & Ors v Okumagba (1976) LPELR-1431(SC)