The Amadabo of Diema, Brass Local Government Area of Bayelsa State, His Royal Highness, Ingo Ikele Ikaba, has exonerated Nembe Exploration and Production Company Limited from any involvement in the communal violence that claimed the life of his younger brother and personal assistant, Mr. Alfred Ojoko, popularly known as “Heavyweight”.

The monarch maintained that the company’s proposed land acquisition and lease process was peaceful and unrelated to the fatal confrontation of October 19, 2026. He identified tensions over black sand mining, unresolved land-boundary disputes and disagreements over community resources as issues requiring investigation.

His position comes amid controversy over the Bayelsa State Government’s directive suspending Nembe E&P’s land acquisition activities in the affected area following the incident.

The company has denied any involvement in the violence, demanding an immediate public retraction of the government’s announcement and threatening legal action to protect its reputation and commercial interests.

Similarly, the Amanyanabo of Ikei Ama, Okpoama Kingdom, His Royal Highness, Ebi Spencer-Tekenah, the Tiefienyo Furo family and the people of Ikei Ama have, through their solicitors, disclaimed any involvement in the incident.

In a formal statement, Ikaba, who described the deceased as his younger brother and personal assistant, said the land acquisition process began early last year and had progressed without any major incident. He added that the Dieama and Ikei communities had cooperated to facilitate the proposed development.

He disclosed that Nembe E&P had undertaken two previous visits to the area without any reported incident, insisting that there was no factual basis for attributing his brother’s death to the company’s land acquisition process.

“I wish to state unequivocally that this narrative does not reflect the circumstances as I understand them. For the avoidance of doubt, the land acquisition/lease process commenced early last year and, until the events in question, had been progressing without any major incident.

“Both the Dieama and Ikei communities had been cooperating in good faith with a common objective of facilitating the process and creating opportunities for meaningful development within our communities. It is also pertinent to note that the company had undertaken two previous visits to the area without any reported incident,” the monarch stated.

Ikaba identified black sand mining activities as a major source of tension in the community, explaining that his opposition to the practice was informed by concerns about environmental degradation and its potential consequences for the long-term interests of the people.

“I have consistently opposed this mining activity because of its potential adverse consequences for our environment and the long-term interests of our people,” he said.

He also identified unresolved land-boundary disputes as another source of friction, noting that disagreements within the community had yet to be amicably resolved.

The monarch urged the public to refrain from circulating unsubstantiated accounts that could misrepresent the circumstances surrounding his brother’s death, unfairly implicate individuals or organisations, and further aggravate tensions.

He called on the relevant authorities to ensure that investigations into the incident were guided by verifiable facts and evidence rather than speculation.

Meanwhile, Nembe E&P has formally challenged the Bayelsa State Government’s decision to associate it with the fatal confrontation and suspend its land acquisition activities, describing the action as unjustified and damaging to its corporate reputation.

While expressing condolences to the bereaved family and affected communities, the company insisted that it neither caused nor instigated the violence and did not participate in it.

It argued that the government had not identified any specific act or omission by the company that contributed to or led to the confrontation.

Nembe E&P explained that its only involvement in the proposed land acquisition was through a proposal presented by a third party with which it had other ongoing transactions.

It stressed that it had no representative on the team that conducted the site visit and maintained that the exercise was peaceful and concluded without incident.

The company further disclosed that its subsequent inquiries indicated that the underlying dispute concerned opposition to black sand mining activities allegedly attributed to Starant Mining Limited, compounded by unresolved disagreements over community leadership and control of resources.

It consequently questioned the basis for the government’s decision to associate it with the incident, particularly in the absence of publicly established evidence of its involvement.

Describing the suspension as a “blanket and indefinite” measure, Nembe E&P faulted the government for failing to identify any breach, specify the duration of the restriction, provide a review mechanism or disclose the statutory basis for the action.

The company also expressed concern over what it described as a recurring pattern of being associated with incidents allegedly unrelated to its operations.

It recalled an earlier allegation linking it to an incident that occurred more than 200 kilometres from its operational acreage and demanded that the government disclose the evidence underlying such associations.

According to the company, the seriousness of a communal crisis does not relieve the government of its responsibility to establish a factual basis before publicly associating a corporate organisation with fatal violence or imposing adverse administrative measures.

It warned that unsupported official allegations, particularly when amplified through national and international media reports, could undermine business confidence, damage commercial relationships and prejudice its legitimate interests.

Consequently, Nembe E&P demanded an immediate and unequivocal retraction of the government’s announcement, insisting that the withdrawal should be communicated publicly with prominence and circulation commensurate with the original statement.

It also reserved its legal rights to protect its reputation, business operations and financial interests.

In a related development, the Amanyanabo of Ikei Ama, Ebi Spencer-Tekenah, the Tiefienyo Furo family and the people of Ikei Ama have also denied any connection with the violence.

Their solicitors, TEE Legal, in a public disclaimer signed by Chief Eric Tekena-Ayeba Tonye, described reports linking their clients to the incident as false and misleading.

The lawyers maintained that a land inspection exercise involving members of the Tiefienyo Furo family and representatives of an indigenous oil exploration company was peaceful and had ended several hours before the confrontation.

They therefore rejected any suggestion that the exercise was connected to the violence, insisting that no credible factual basis had been established to implicate their clients.

“For the avoidance of doubt, our clients categorically disclaim any involvement in, connection with, nor responsibility for the said incident,” the solicitors stated.

The lawyers also pointed to preliminary information concerning alleged illegal black sand mining activities in the affected area, saying the allegations required proper investigation.

They condemned the loss of life and called on the Nigeria Police Force and other relevant authorities to conduct a thorough, impartial and professional investigation to establish the circumstances surrounding the incident and identify those responsible.

The competing accounts have placed renewed focus on underlying tensions over black sand mining, land ownership and community leadership in the affected area of Brass Local Government Area.

While the monarch has maintained that Nembe E&P’s land acquisition process was peaceful and unrelated to the death of his personal assistant, the company has challenged the government’s decision to associate it with the violence. The Ikei Ama community has also denied responsibility for the incident.

The authorities are expected to establish the immediate circumstances surrounding the fatal confrontation and determine whether the disputed mining activities and land-related issues contributed to the crisis.

A joint venture agreement for the construction of 18 apartments has triggered a major property dispute in Lagos, with the landowner alleging that developer Levitikal expanded the project to more than 44 units, attempted to mortgage the entire property and sold apartments to third parties beyond its agreed entitlement.

The dispute, involving Levitikal and Mr. Samuel Ajose, centres on a Joint Venture Agreement (JVA) executed in May 2021 for the development of 18 three-bedroom apartments, to be shared equally between the landowner and the developer.

Under the agreement, the landowner was entitled to nine apartments, while Levitikal was to retain the remaining nine upon successful completion of the project. According to the landowner, the agreement did not transfer ownership of the land to the developer.

However, she alleges that Levitikal subsequently partitioned the development into more than 44 one-, two- and three-bedroom apartments without her knowledge or consent, contrary to the terms of the agreement and the building approval granted by the Lagos State Government.

The dispute has culminated in an intervention by the Federal High Court, which, on September 29, 2026, restrained Levitikal from selling, transferring, mortgaging or otherwise dealing with the property.

The court also appointed an official receiver to take possession, custody and control of the property pending arbitration.

The landowner’s allegations extend beyond the number and configuration of the apartments to the attempted use of the entire property as security for a loan, the registration of a Power of Attorney, and the marketing and sale of units to members of the public.

She alleged that Ajose and Levitikal attempted to mortgage the entire property to Providus Bank without her knowledge, consent or approval, despite the developer’s entitlement being limited to nine apartments under the joint venture arrangement.

According to her, the proposed transaction exceeded the developer’s contractual rights and sought to encumber the entire property, including her interest in the land and the nine apartments allocated to her.

Another contentious issue concerns a Power of Attorney granted to facilitate the development.

The landowner alleged that Levitikal attempted to use the instrument to assert control over the property beyond the authority granted under the joint venture agreement.

She further alleged that Levitikal and Providus Bank instituted court proceedings seeking to compel the registration of the Power of Attorney without initially joining her as a party.

According to her account, the landowner subsequently intervened in the proceedings to protect her title and interests in the property.

She maintained that the Power of Attorney was granted solely for development purposes and did not confer ownership of the land on Levitikal.

The landowner reiterated that the original agreement expressly provided for 18 three-bedroom apartments, with each party entitled to nine units upon successful completion of the project.

She alleged, however, that Levitikal subsequently partitioned the development into more than 44 apartments comprising one-, two- and three-bedroom units, fundamentally altering the agreed project.

According to her, the changes were made without her knowledge or consent and were contrary to the development approved by the Lagos State Government.

The landowner also alleged that she and her representatives repeatedly sought access to the property and requested copies of the approved building plans to ascertain the nature and extent of the construction.

Between 2023 and 2026, she said, several attempts to inspect the development were frustrated, while formal requests for the approved plans were allegedly not honoured.

She maintained that the lack of access prevented her from adequately monitoring the project and determining whether the construction complied with the joint venture agreement and the relevant approvals.

The dispute has also raised concerns about apartments allegedly marketed and sold to members of the public.

The landowner alleged that Levitikal offered apartments for sale, including units outside the scope of the original joint venture arrangement.

She argued that the transactions raised questions about the developer’s authority to sell the units and the nature of the interests conveyed to purchasers.

The allegations also point to potential financial exposure for buyers who may have committed funds to apartments without being aware of the dispute over the underlying property.

Following what she described as fundamental breaches of the joint venture agreement, the landowner revoked the Power of Attorney and terminated the agreement.

She maintained that the alleged expansion of the development, the attempted mortgage of the entire property and the sale of apartments beyond the developer’s agreed entitlement amounted to breaches of the parties’ arrangement.

The termination further escalated the dispute, which has now resulted in the Federal High Court’s intervention.

The matter has also been referred to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), which, according to the landowner’s account, is investigating Ajose and Levitikal over allegations of fraud relating to the development, financing and sale of apartments on the property.

The Federal High Court’s September 29, 2026, orders restraining further dealings with the property and appointing an official receiver have placed the development under court-supervised control pending arbitration.

The substantive dispute remains centred on the parties’ respective contractual rights, the scope of the Power of Attorney, the extent of the development, the proposed mortgage and the interests of any third-party purchasers.

As Nigeria commemorates its 66th Independence Anniversary, the Executive Chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Mr. Ola Olukoyede, has reiterated the need for accountable conduct and zero tolerance of corruption by every Nigerian to give value to the ongoing government reforms.

He made the call in Abuja on Thursday, October 1, 2026, in his Independence Anniversary message to Nigerians.

He applauded efforts being made to grow the commanding heights of the polity, describing them as “building blocks of the greater nation we desire.” He called on Nigerians to couple all reform-focused efforts with zero tolerance for corruption.

“At 66, Nigeria has come a long way. Independence has offered us liberty and self-determination. We are also making considerable progress in nation-building. All these efforts are significant. They are the building blocks of the greater nation we desire. Let’s therefore couple all our reform-focused initiatives with zero tolerance for corruption,” he said.

He expressed optimism that Nigeria would fare better and emphasised the greater need to reject corrupt practices in all their forms.

“We cannot be building and allow corrupt practices to vitiate our efforts. Progress only comes with purposeful rejection of compromises. Nigeria will surely get better!” he said.