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
Kashim Shettima: Of Betrayal, Power, and Survival.
Kashim Shettima: Of Betrayal, Power, and Survival.
By: Inuwa Bwala.
“March has returned, and with it the Ides. Beware the men who call you brother.”
Julius Caesar was perhaps Rome’s most trusted general. He crossed the Rubicon for Rome, conquered Gaul for Rome, and pardoned enemies for Rome.
Yet it was neither Gaul nor Pompey: his avowed rivals, that killed him. It was Brutus: his friend, and confidant yet his protégé, who was described as “the noblest Roman of them all.”
Julius Caesar did not slump and died because the daggers were too many, rather, bacause he noticed the person he least expected could betray him amongst those stabbing him: Brutus. In utter shock and disbelief, Caesar slumped, but not before he uttered the word,”And you too Brutus?”.
There is no doubt that, Kashim Shettima was Borno’s most tested governor. He walked into boiling areas, when others fled the state. He rebuilt schools bombed by Boko Haram. He chose to stay in Maiduguri when Abuja offered comfort.
As Vice President, he has carried himself as a true statesman abs the face of the Tinubu administration at national and international meets.
He always speaks of “the sanctity of human life” and calked for swifter and total mobilisationagainst terror.
Yet today, whispers from Borno and Abuja suggest the daggers are not in the bush like that of Boko Haram, they are in the hands of his kinsmen, those he hold family meetings and political meetings with.
Those who could read between the line, may be able to tell, when Shettima gave an anecdote at a recent public function, about the visit by his kinsmen to his boss, Bola Ahmed Tinubu, just three months into the life of the administration.
Like Brutus and the conspirators of the Shakespearean fame, who claimed they did not hate Caesar, but loved Rome more, those who visited Tinubu claimed to love Nigeria more and her President, abd not brcause thry hated Shettima.
Brutus in particular played on a so-called republican pride and his fear of tyranny, which he used in convincing himself that betrayal was patriotism. He struck to “save” Rome.
Shettima’s own “Brutuses” use a different script, relying on Shetyima’s perceived ambition and the attendant battle to keep himself in the balance of power as an alibi.
And in the face of contending forces, they recruited people to plsy out the cards, while remaining in the shadows. The charges may appear different with that if Caesar, but the intents are same. And while still smarting from the Muslim-Muslim debacle, Shettima had hradly setyled in office when they began to spread rumours of him, being too Borno, not enough to be a northerner. Too ambitious, fetish, independent minded and growing too popular. One thing they could not take away from him though us the fact that Shettima is intelligent, shrewd and a master schemer, which his boss knows too well.
I had cause to warn of this years ago seeing Shettima’s passive refusal to pick between kinsmen in place of statesmen to work with him.
I could see through the plots to denigrate a fine emergent nationalist by linking him with Boko Haram, painting him as fetish, portraying him as a religious and ethinic checkbox, all in a bud to undo him. The weapon when he was govetnor was insurgency, but the weapon now is political naivity and stereotyping . The tactic includes convincing his Kanuri kinsmen to fight him, so that “when Kanuri fights Kanuri, others will win. But beyond that, even his Kanuri brothers seem to have an axe to grind with him.
The painful truth remains, that, Caesar’s killers were senators in the Capitol, but Shettima’s challengers may be his own kinsmen: some of whom, he nentored snd no one can ever convince him that, they could ever work against him. In both cases, the dagger is dipped in familiarity.
It cuts deeper because the hands holding it, are either those he mentored or once broke bread with him.
Caesar died because he ignored omens. Not even Calpurnia, his wife’s dream could deter him. He ignored the soothsayer, and shunned the Senate’s mood, thinking goodwill was a good sheild and armor.
Shettima’s March 2027 is loaded with omens too, arising from fresh attacks by vested interests, intrigues amongst political players, betrayal by kinsmen, espionage by aides and attachees, dissertion by hitherto close allies, manipulations in the media, ethnic or religious profiling, clandestine meetings that without communiqués, but with lethal intents, contending forces in the party who whisper that 2027 needs a “new pairing.” indeed, the ides are here, because a second term is near, and second terms birth daggers.
As governor, perhaps Shettima survived by moving rather faster than conspiracy. He outrun, those who want to either even scores or shake off his dominace, and those people have remained at daggers drawn with him
How Shettima Survives, will definitely be a refrence point in power struggles in Nigeria.
But unlike Caesar who never learnt, Shettima is a good student of Robert Greens 48 Laws of Power, and must have drawn lessons from the falls of others before him.
To survive, Shettima must learn to trust, but audit the Praetorians. Caesar trusted Brutus with his life. Shettima cannot afford blind trust. The INEC database compromise and probe shows how insider access kills. Shettima must do what he did as governor: forensic audits, no sacred cows. As I earlier said, he must have his own policy, which must not be changed simply because some people want to determine its content.
He must learnt to keep the people, his own trusted people, and must not loose, as Caesar lost Rome due to his belief in his personal prowess and capacity. Shettima still owns Borno’s streets and still conttols the larger and more lethal political forces in the North.
He should be able to name the Brutus, but should not become an Antony, whom at Caesar’s funeral sparked civil unrest. Shettima cannot afford chaos. He should have a machinery on ground that will expose the plot, without burning the Forum. He should expedite action in uniting the North, and rally the support of kinsmen, even as a counterforce, or risks allowing the real enemies to win.
Importantly, he should bear in mind, that, the parabolical March is not the end, the ides pass. For Caesar, it ended at Pompey’s statue, but for Shettima, March can end with a stronger alliance. He must do what he told the nation: “We choose light over shadow, and hope over despair”.
The Verdict of History, had
Brutus dying on his own sword, muttering, “Caesar, now be still.” Betrayal did not save the Republic, rather it buried it.
Shettima’s kinsmen face the same choice. They can strike and wait for the verdict of history, or they can sheathe the dagger and remember: the real enemy still sleeps someehere else.
Twelve years ago, I wrote that Shettima’s ides would test Borno. In 2026, I state without fear of contradiction, that, they will test Nigeria.
Caesar ignored the soothsayer because he was in so much hurry. Shettima, as always, may not be in a hurry, but should he decide to, that hurry may yet save him.
Kashim Shettima: Of Betrayal, Power, and Survival.
News
FACT CHECK: No School Attack, No Student Abduction in Kautikari — What Really Happened During the ISWAP Raid
FACT CHECK: No School Attack, No Student Abduction in Kautikari — What Really Happened During the ISWAP Raid
By Zagazola Makama
A wave of alarming reports circulating across social media and some online platforms has claimed that Boko Haram insurgents attacked a school and abducted students in Kautikari community of Chibok Local Government Area, Borno State.
The claims, predictably amplified by emotionally charged references to the 2014 Chibok schoolgirls’ abduction, have generated anxiety among Nigerians following developments in the troubled region.
However, a detailed fact-check by Zagazola Makama, based on assessment from field sources, and video evidence from the scene, has found the claims to be entirely FALSE.
According to sources, the incident occurred at about 7:30 p.m. on June 13 when ISWAP terrorists launched an attack on a hunters’ patrol base located within the premises of a disused primary school in Kautikari.
The facility being used by the hunters was not functioning as a school at the time of the attack, nor were students present at the location. Rather, local hunters had established a patrol outpost within the structure, using some of the classrooms as temporary accommodation and operational shelters while supporting troops of Operation HADIN KAI’s efforts in the area.
The terrorists specifically targeted the hunters’ base and not a school populated by students as widely claimed. Initial resistance by the hunters successfully repelled the first assault.
However, the terrorists later regrouped in larger numbers and launched a second attack, forcing the hunters to temporarily withdraw after running low on ammunition.
Military sources disclosed that reinforcement teams comprising troops of the 117 Task Force Battalion from Kwada, supported by a Quick Response Force, local hunters and vigilante personnel, rapidly mobilized to the scene and engaged the terrorists. The coordinated response eventually overwhelmed the attackers and forced them to retreat.
No Student Was Abducted
Contrary to viral claims, there is no evidence that any student was abducted during the attack. Operational reports from the scene recorded no missing students, no reports of schoolchildren being taken away, and no indication that the terrorists targeted an educational institution in session.
Security sources confirmed that accountability checks conducted after the attack found no cases of student abduction.
In fact, the only confirmed casualties were one civilian who was reportedly struck by a stray bullet fired by the terrorists and one member of the Civilian Joint Task Force (CJTF) who sustained a gunshot wound to the arm.
Sources said also that the terrorists set fire to clothing and personal belongings belonging to the hunters stationed at the outpost. No troops were killed or injured during the engagement.
Further undermining the false reports is video footage obtained by Zagazola Makama from the aftermath of the attack. In the footage, one of the affected hunters is seen showing the damaged facility and burnt belongings while lamenting the destruction caused by the terrorists.
The hunter can be heard explaining that the location served as their place of accommodation and operational base.
“This is where we sleep,” he says while pointing to the affected section of the building.
The footage clearly supports military accounts that the target was a hunters’ outpost and not an occupied school hosting students.
The confusion likely arose because the hunters’ base was situated within the premises of a primary school building.
Photographs and videos showing damaged classrooms were subsequently circulated online without context, leading some platforms to incorrectly conclude that a school had been attacked and students abducted.
The result was the rapid spread of misinformation that failed basic verification standards.
Given Chibok’s painful history, any report involving schools and abductions naturally attracts national and international attention. This makes accurate reporting even more important.
FACT CHECK: No School Attack, No Student Abduction in Kautikari — What Really Happened During the ISWAP Raid
News
Police Foil IED Attack, Destroy Explosive Device in Zamfara
Police Foil IED Attack, Destroy Explosive Device in Zamfara
By: Zagazola Makama
The Zamfara State Police Command says it has successfully foiled a planned attack after its Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) unit discovered and safely destroyed an Improvised Explosive Device (IED) in Tsafe Local Government Area of the state.
The Command said the operation was carried out on Friday at about 4:15 p.m. along the Kunchin Kalgo axis following credible intelligence received through community engagement efforts.

According to a statement issued by the Command, operatives of the Violence Crime Response Unit (VCRU), in collaboration with the EOD team, swiftly mobilised to the area after receiving information about a suspected explosive device planted by bandits.
Preliminary findings indicated that the device was strategically planted along the road with the intent of causing mass casualties among commuters and other road users.
The statement added that the timely response of the operatives led to the safe detection, evacuation and controlled destruction of the explosive device before it could cause any harm.
The Command commended the vigilance and cooperation of local residents, describing community support as critical to ongoing security operations in the state.
It further assured residents that efforts were ongoing to identify, arrest and prosecute those responsible for planting the device.
The police also disclosed that patrols had been intensified across vulnerable areas to prevent similar incidents and ensure the safety of road users.
The Commissioner of Police, A.M. Bello, reiterated the Command’s commitment to sustained operations against banditry and other violent crimes in Zamfara State.
Police Foil IED Attack, Destroy Explosive Device in Zamfara
-
News2 years agoRoger Federer’s Shock as DNA Results Reveal Myla and Charlene Are Not His Biological Children
-
Opinions4 years agoTHE PLIGHT OF FARIDA
-
News1 year agoFAILED COUP IN BURKINA FASO: HOW TRAORÉ NARROWLY ESCAPED ASSASSINATION PLOT AMID FOREIGN INTERFERENCE CLAIMS
-
News2 years agoEYN: Rev. Billi, Distortion of History, and The Living Tamarind Tree
-
Opinions4 years agoPOLICE CHARGE ROOMS, A MINTING PRESS
-
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.
-
Politics1 year ago2027: Why Hon. Midala Balami Must Go, as Youths in Hawul and Asikira/Uba Federal Constituency Reject ₦500,000 as Sallah Gift
