News
Obaseki’s Claims on Orhionmwon Land Grabbing are Misleading and Self-Serving
Obaseki’s Claims on Orhionmwon Land Grabbing are Misleading and Self-Serving
By Augustine Osayande PhD
Former Governor Godwin Obaseki’s recent comments accusing Pastor Osagie Ize-Iyamu and Hon. Dennis Idahosa of “harassing investors” in Orhionmwon and Ovia are yet another attempt to distort facts and evade accountability. His claims of land grabbing are not only unsubstantiated—they follow a familiar pattern in which he manufactures political villains to divert attention from the controversies and community grievances that defined his administration.
For a political officeholder who openly claims Oredo Local Government as his home base, Obaseki’s decision to allocate more than 250,000 hectares of land in Orhionmwon Local Government Area to Saro Oil Palm Limited—without due regard for the ownership rights and interests of the host communities—is deeply troubling. The people of Orhionmwon are not tenants of the state government, and they cannot be pushed aside simply because a governor wishes to curry favour with select investors. This unilateral style of governance, where critical community interests are sacrificed at the altar of executive discretion, is precisely what Edo people rejected at the polls.
For me, one of the most troubling episodes of the Obaseki years remains the ordeal faced by the Ologbo-Nugu community in Orhionmwon Local Government Area—a story that never received the level of attention it deserved. While Obaseki was still governor, the people of this small rural community were forced to issue a desperate Save-Our-Soul (SOS) message over what they described as the forceful takeover of their ancestral land by an agricultural firm.
Let me be clear: the community never opposed investment or industrial development. In fact, like many rural communities in Edo State, they welcomed meaningful projects that could create jobs and improve livelihoods. But what they could not accept—and rightly so—was the manner in which Barnsley Nigeria Limited (BNL), operators of SARO Farms, went about asserting total control over their land. Instead of being partners in development, the community members felt bulldozed, ignored, and pushed aside.
I remember the images of their protest—their placards telling their story better than any official statement. “SARO, leave 250 hectares for us to farm or quit our land.” “Stop deceiving us.” “SARO, stop oppressing us. This is the only land we have.” These were not political slogans; they were cries for survival from people whose only source of livelihood was at stake.
The community wasn’t being unreasonable. They demanded something simple, fair, and already promised: that 250 hectares of their land be left for them to farm. That was the agreement. That was the governor’s directive. Yet, even this modest allocation was allegedly denied them, leaving them with no space to grow food crops, no way to sustain themselves, and no explanation.
The testimony that struck me the most came from the Odionwere of Ologbo-Nugu, Pa Aduwa Osaigbovo, a 96-year-old custodian of the community. Imagine a man of that age, who should be spending his days in peace, forced to lead a protest because his people were being displaced. In his gentle but pained voice, he described the actions of SARO Farms as “crude and barbaric”—not words he would use lightly.
He lamented that the company ignored the governor’s instruction to leave part of the land for the community. And he reminded the state, in a way that only someone with nearly a century of lived experience can that food scarcity is real, and that denying people farmland is condemning them to hardship.
What happened in Ologbo-Nugu is not just a community’s struggle—it is a stark reminder of what happens when development is done without humanity, without consultation, and without respect for the people whose lives are directly affected.
It is also part of why many Edo people remain skeptical when they hear politicians speak about “investor protection.” True development does not come at the cost of dispossessing ordinary people. True investment uplifts—it does not erase communities.
Ologbo-Nugu’s cry for help still echoes today, and until their grievances are addressed, it will remain a symbol of what went wrong under a government that often chose investors over the very people it was elected to serve.
Obaseki’s long-standing habit of personalising governance and portraying dissenting voices as enemies has never served the state well. Edo people do not desire leadership driven by threats, bitterness, and self-righteousness. They expect responsibility, transparency, engagement, and respect for lawful processes—values that were too often sidelined during his eight years in power.
Throughout his tenure, Obaseki routinely blamed others—political godfathers, party members, traditional rulers, labour unions, civil society, and virtually anyone who dared to question his opaque land deals or his confrontational style of administration. His latest attempt to accuse Ize-Iyamu and Idahosa of wrongdoing is simply an extension of this defensive posture. Communities in Orhionmwon, Ovia, and other affected areas have, for years, expressed dissatisfaction with land allocations issued without adequate consultation or compensation.
These legitimate grievances cannot be swept aside by pointing fingers at political opponents.
The allegations against Ize-Iyamu and Idahosa remain without evidence. Both men have consistently championed transparency, accountability, and genuine community involvement in land administration—principles that stand in stark contrast to the secrecy that characterised many of Obaseki’s investment agreements. If the former governor has credible proof that they engaged in land grabbing or investor harassment, he should present it publicly. Otherwise, his claims amount to nothing more than an attempt to shield his past decisions from the scrutiny they deserve.
Even more revealing is Obaseki’s suggestion that these political actors were “bitter because they couldn’t get access” to him during his tenure. This remark confirms what many Edo people suspected: that governance under Obaseki had become centralised, closed-off, and dependent on personal relationships rather than institutional processes. Public office is not a private estate, and no elected official is entitled to gatekeep the functions of the state.
If investors have genuine concerns, they should direct them through proper administrative channels, not hide behind the name of a former governor to generate unnecessary tension or manipulate public perception.
Obaseki’s threat that Governor Monday Okpebholo “will regret” ongoing inquiries into land matters is equally alarming. Edo people voted overwhelmingly for transparency, reform, and a full review of previous land allocations. No amount of political posturing, intimidation, or emotional blackmail will halt the push for clarity and accountability. The new administration is duty-bound to investigate all contentious land deals and ensure that community rights are upheld.
The truth is simple: investment thrives when communities are respected, agreements are clear, and government decisions are transparent. The real enemy of investor confidence is secrecy, not oversight. It is opaque decision-making—not due process—that discourages credible investors and fuels resentment among host communities.
Obaseki’s attempt to cast himself as the protector of investors does not align with the lived reality of the communities most affected by his policies. Edo State has now entered a new era—one committed to fairness, openness, community engagement, and shared prosperity.
In the end, Obaseki’s latest outburst deserves just one response: dismissal. Edo people have moved on, and no attempt to rewrite history or shift blame will change the record of his administration or obstruct the work of the current government.
Augustine Osayande, PhD contributed this piece from Abuja via austinelande@yahoo.com
Obaseki’s Claims on Orhionmwon Land Grabbing are Misleading and Self-Serving
News
Seven dead, five injured in multiple-vehicle crash along Lokoja–Abuja highway
Seven dead, five injured in multiple-vehicle crash along Lokoja–Abuja highway
By: Zagazola Makama
At least seven persons were killed and five others injured on Tuesday morning in a multiple-vehicle collision along the Lokoja–Abuja highway near Gadabiu Village, Kwali Local Government Area of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT).
Sources told Zagazola Makama that the accident occurred at about 9:00 a.m. when a Howo truck, with registration number ANC 665 XA, driven by one Adamu of Tafa Local Government Area, Kaduna State, lost control and rammed into three stationary vehicles parked along the road.
The affected vehicles included a Golf 3 (GWA 162 KZ), another Golf and a Sharon vehicle.The drivers of the three stationary vehicles are yet to be identified.
The sources said the Howo truck had been travelling from Okaki in Kogi State to Tafa LGA in Kaduna State when the incident occurred. Seven victims reportedly died on the spot, while five sustained various degrees of injuries, including fractures.
The injured were rushed to Abaji General Hospital, where they are receiving treatment. The corpses of the deceased have been released to their families for burial according to Islamic rites.
The police have advised motorists to exercise caution on highways and called on drivers to ensure their vehicles are roadworthy to prevent similar accidents in the future.
Seven dead, five injured in multiple-vehicle crash along Lokoja–Abuja highway
News
How misdiagnosis, narratives are fuelling Nigeria’s banditry escalation
How misdiagnosis, narratives are fuelling Nigeria’s banditry escalation
By: Zagazola Makama
Nigeria’s banditry crisis is no longer escalating simply because armed groups are growing bolder. It is escalating because the country continues to misdiagnose the threat, apply blunt policy tools to differentiated actors, and unintentionally feed a violent criminal economy through ransom payments, politicised narratives and delayed state consolidation.
Across the North-West and parts of the North-Central, banditry has evolved beyond rural violence into a structured, profit-driven security threat. Yet public debate remains trapped between emotional appeals for dialogue and absolutist calls for force, leaving little room for the strategic clarity required to halt the violence.
At the heart of the escalation is money. Banditry today survives on a diversified revenue architecture that includes ransom payments, cattle rustling, illegal mining, arms trafficking, extortion levies on farming and mining communities, and collaboration with transnational criminal networks. Each successful kidnapping or “peace levy” reinforces the viability of violence as a business model.
Data released by the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) in December 2024 underlined the scale of this economy with the North-West accounting for the highest number of kidnap incidents and victims.
Zagazola argue that as long as communities remain unprotected and ransom payments continue as a survival strategy, banditry will regenerate faster than military operations can suppress it. This is not ideology-driven violence at its core; it is cash-flow-driven criminality as every payment funds the next attack.
Another accelerant is Nigeria’s persistent failure to differentiate categories of armed actors. Security assessments increasingly point to at least two distinct groups operating within the banditry ecosystem.
The first consists of low-level, defensive armed actors, often rural residents who acquired weapons after suffering attacks and whose violence is reactive rather than predatory. The second group comprises entrenched, profit-driven bandit networks responsible for mass kidnappings, village destruction, sexual violence, arms trafficking and territorial control.
Yet public discourse and policy responses frequently collapse these actors into a single category of “bandits,” resulting in indiscriminate dialogue offers, blanket amnesty rhetoric or, conversely, broad-brush security operations that alienate communities. This conceptual error, allows high-value criminal leaders to masquerade as aggrieved actors while exploiting negotiations to buy time, regroup and rearm.
Dialogue has repeatedly been applied in contexts where the state lacks coercive leverage. Experiences in Zamfara, Katsina, Sokoto and Kaduna states and parts of the North-West show a consistent pattern: temporary reductions in violence following peace deals, followed by rapid relapse and escalation. Officials who participated in the dialogue have openly acknowledged that many agreements collapsed within months.
The negotiations conducted without sustained military pressure, intelligence dominance and post-agreement enforcement mechanisms merely incentivise armed groups to pause tactically. When criminals negotiate from a position of strength, dialogue becomes appeasement.
Perhaps the most dangerous accelerant is the ethnicisation of banditry. Although criminal gangs include actors of identifiable ethnic backgrounds, the violence itself is not driven by ethnic grievance. Nonetheless, selective media framing and political rhetoric like what had been witnessed in Plateau have increasingly cast banditry through identity lenses, particularly in farmer–herder contexts.
This framing obscures the criminal logic of the violence and deepens mistrust between communities that are themselves victims. In Nigeria today, the fulani herdsmen and pastoralists communities are being weaponized and stereotyped as bandits. This dangerous persecution has strengthens bandit recruitment narratives, allowing criminal leaders to cloak profit-driven violence in claims of ethnic persecution or genocide.
Historical records and sociological studies show that Fulani, Hausa, Tiv, Berom and other communities coexisted for decades through complementary economic systems. The breakdown of this coexistence has been exploited by armed groups seeking cover, recruits and informants. Security agencies possess significantly more intelligence on bandit networks than is visible in public debate. Lawful interceptions, human intelligence and post-operation assessments routinely reveal financial motives, supply routes and internal hierarchies within armed groups.
However, public advocacy for dialogue often relies on forest-level engagements that security officials describe as “theatrical performances” by bandits choreographed grievances designed to elicit sympathy and concessions. The disconnect between classified intelligence and public narratives has allowed emotionally compelling but strategically flawed arguments to dominate national discourse.
Another escalation factor is the emerging convergence between bandit networks and ideological terrorist groups as Nigeria’s internal security landscape firmly indicates that what has long been treated as banditry especially in the North-West and parts of North-Central Nigeria has evolved into a hybrid jihadist campaign, driven by Boko Haram (JAS faction) and reinforced by JNIM elements operating from Sahelian-linked forest sanctuaries. Shared arms supply chains, training exchanges and joint operations could transform banditry from criminal violence into full-spectrum insurgency if unchecked. Nigeria’s past experience with Boko Haram demonstrates the cost of dismissing such convergence as isolated or exaggerated.
Military operations have succeeded in degrading bandit camps in several corridors, but the absence of immediate governance has allowed violence to recycle. Clearing operations not followed by permanent security presence, functional courts, reopened schools, healthcare and markets leave vacuums that criminal actors quickly refill. Bandits and other criminals thrive where state authority is episodic rather than continuous. Security victories without governance consolidation merely displace violence spatially and temporally.
Therefore, Nigeria must urgently reset its approach by formally adopting threat differentiation, choking financial lifelines, regulating community defence structures, and ensuring intelligence-led, precise enforcement against high-risk criminal networks. Dialogue, they say, must be selective, conditional and embedded within formal disarmament and reintegration frameworks not deployed as a moral reflex.
Above all, the state must reclaim narrative control by defining banditry clearly as organised criminal violence, not a sociological misunderstanding. As one senior official put it, “Banditry escalates where sentiment overrides strategy. The cure begins with honesty.”
Without that honesty, Nigeria risks allowing a violent criminal economy to entrench itself deeper into the country’s security architecture at a cost measured not just in money, but in lives, legitimacy and national cohesion.
How misdiagnosis, narratives are fuelling Nigeria’s banditry escalation
News
ISWAP kills 10 JAS fighters in Kukawa as rivalry clashes escalates
ISWAP kills 10 JAS fighters in Kukawa as rivalry clashes escalates
By: Zagazola Makama
No fewer than 10 fighters of the Jama’atu Ahlis Sunna Lidda’awati wal-Jihad (JAS) were killed on Jan. 8 during a night attack by the rival Islamic State West Africa Province (ISWAP) at Dabar Ledda, within the Doron Naira axis of Kukawa Local Government Area (LGA) of Borno State.
Security sources told Zagazola Makama that ISWAP fighters launched a surprise assault on a JAS checkpoint, locally referred to as an Irasa, in the Dabar Ledda area, overwhelming the position after a brief but intense clash.
Sources familiar with developments in the area told Zagazola Makama that the attack ended decisively in ISWAP’s favour, with about 10 JAS fighters killed. Following the operation, ISWAP elements were said to have withdrawn swiftly to their major stronghold located between Kangarwa and Dogon Chuku, also within Kukawa LGA.
Both group has, in recent years, focused on degrading each other’s capabilities in an attempt to consolidate control over key corridors around Lake Chad as well as Sambisa Forest.
However, the latest clash is expected to trigger a violent response. Intelligence reports suggest that JAS leadership, acting on directives allegedly issued by Abu Umaima, has ordered mobilisation of fighters across the northern and central parts of the Lake Chad region of Borno (LCRBA) in preparation for retaliatory attacks.
The planned counter-offensive could lead to an upsurge in large-scale attacks in the days and weeks ahead, particularly around the Kangarwa–Dogon Chuku corridor, an area that has witnessed repeated factional battles due to its strategic value for logistics, recruitment and access routes.
While the infighting has historically weakened Boko Haram/ISWAP overall cohesion, Zagazola caution that intensified clashes often come at a heavy cost to civilians, as armed groups raid communities for supplies, conscripts and intelligence. Kukawa LGA, already battered by years of insurgency, remains highly vulnerable whenever such rivalries escalate.
ISWAP kills 10 JAS fighters in Kukawa as rivalry clashes escalates
-
News2 years agoRoger Federer’s Shock as DNA Results Reveal Myla and Charlene Are Not His Biological Children
-
Opinions4 years agoTHE PLIGHT OF FARIDA
-
News9 months agoFAILED COUP IN BURKINA FASO: HOW TRAORÉ NARROWLY ESCAPED ASSASSINATION PLOT AMID FOREIGN INTERFERENCE CLAIMS
-
Opinions4 years agoPOLICE CHARGE ROOMS, A MINTING PRESS
-
News2 years agoEYN: Rev. Billi, Distortion of History, and The Living Tamarind Tree
-
ACADEMICS2 years agoA History of Biu” (2015) and The Lingering Bura-Pabir Question (1)
-
Columns2 years agoArmy University Biu: There is certain interest, but certainly not from Borno.
-
Opinions2 years agoTinubu,Shettima: The epidemic of economic, insecurity in Nigeria
