A sudden move by the Lagos State Chief Judge, Justice Kazeem Alogba, to withdraw and potentially transfer a land dispute case without notifying the claimants or their lawyers has sparked controversy and raised concerns about whether justice will be served.

The incident unfolded at the Ikeja High Court on Wednesday, April 15, during proceedings before Justice Akin Savage of the Lands Division. In an unusual development, the judge informed the court that the Chief Judge had requested the case file, offering no explanation for the action.

The case, between Nasco Town Limited (claimant) and Mr. Abiodun Ariori, the Chief Michael Mojisola Cole family, and others (defendants), was the first scheduled for hearing that day. It involved a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Chief Anthony George-Ikoli, a former Attorney General of Bayelsa State. As the court prepared to begin, the registrar approached the bench and whispered to the judge. Justice Savage then announced that the file had been recalled by the Chief Judge and advised counsel to await further communication on whether it would be returned or reassigned.

A visibly puzzled Chief George-Ikoli sought clarification, prompting the following exchange:

Judge: Call the case of the learned silk.
Registrar: (approaches and whispers to the judge)
Judge: The Chief Judge has called for the file, and it is with him.
Lawyer: May we know the reason the Chief Judge called for the file?
Judge: I do not know, as no reason was given. When or if the file comes back, we shall inform you.

Lawyer: Sir, in the spirit of fairness, when a file is called back from a court by the Chief Judge, the parties ought to be informed and told the reasons.
Judge: The Chief Judge has the power to call for any file at any time. I do not have the authority to question or query his actions. When the file comes back, we shall inform you. There is no file to work with.

(The judge then directed the registrar to call the next case.)

Disturbed by the development, Chief George-Ikoli subsequently petitioned the Chief Judge, seeking clarification. The petition, signed by Ms. Ayotunde Shabi of his chambers, noted that the case—filed in 2020—has yet to progress significantly beyond the pre-trial stage. It expressed concern that the sudden withdrawal of the file, without explanation, had heightened the anxiety of the claimants and raised questions about the transparency and impartiality of the judicial process.

The petition also referenced an affidavit deposed to by Chief George-Ikoli on April 16, detailing the events in court the previous day. Counsel urged the Chief Judge to clarify the purpose of the request, stressing that such information is necessary to properly advise and reassure their clients, especially given the indefinite adjournment of the case.

Separately, Nasco Town Limited also petitioned the Chief Judge, alleging possible undue external influence.

In a letter signed by its Executive Coordinator, Dr. Mustapha Sulaiman, the company expressed concern that while the defendants appeared to have prior knowledge of the file’s withdrawal, Nasco, the claimant, was neither notified nor given an opportunity to respond to any complaint or petition that may have prompted the action.

Nasco outlined its long-standing possession of the land, stating that it has been in peaceful and uninterrupted possession since 1978 under a lease granted by the Federal Government. The company said it had carried out extensive development on the property, including land reclamation, construction, and the granting of a sublease to Michelin Tyres Limited in 1981. It added that the land was later designated a Free Trade Zone following its application, and that development of its industrial section was underway before the dispute arose.

According to the company, this possession was disrupted in 2018 when Mr. Ariori, along with members of the family of the late Chief Cole, allegedly invaded the land with armed policemen and thugs, claiming to enforce a 1997 consent judgment in favour of the Chief Cole family, to which Nasco was not a party.

Nasco further stated that investigations showed the consent judgment had already been executed on a different parcel of land before the Chief’s demise—a position it said was supported by official records and even acknowledged by one of the families involved. It also noted that the late Chief Cole neither claimed nor visited the disputed land during his lifetime.

The company said its initial legal action in 2018 was handled by Justice Olaide Olayinka but was delayed due to difficulties in serving the defendants, who allegedly evaded service, until the judge retired. In the current suit, filed in 2020, the defendants allegedly continued to evade service until the court granted an order for substituted service four years later. Despite this, the matter has been plagued by repeated adjournments and procedural delays allegedly caused by the defendants.

Against this backdrop, Nasco described the sudden withdrawal of the case file as deeply troubling, particularly given what it perceived as unequal access to information between the parties. It warned that the situation could suggest external interference, citing claims by Mr. Ariori of connections to the current Attorney General of Lagos State.

The disputed land is registered as No. 25 at Page 25, Volume 81 of the land registry, as delineated in Survey Plan No. JLS/23/78. Despite being in court for several years, the case has made little substantive progress.

Both petitions now place the burden squarely on the Chief Judge to explain the rationale behind his intervention—an explanation that may determine not just the fate of this case, but also broader public confidence in the administration of justice in Lagos.

The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has urged an Ikeja Special Offences Court to admit in evidence the extra-judicial statement of a co-defendant in the ongoing trial of former Central Bank of Nigeria Governor, Godwin Emefiele, insisting that the statement was made voluntarily and in compliance with the law.

The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) of the Federation, Rotimi Oyedepo, SAN, appearing for the EFCC, told the court that the statement by the second defendant, Henry Omoile, was obtained in substantial compliance with the provisions of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), stressing that it was made in the presence of his counsel, even though it was not video-recorded.

He further argued that the contents of the statement undermine allegations of coercion, noting that Omoile expressly refused to implicate Emefiele in any wrongdoing and also denied committing the offences alleged against him.

According to the DPP, such denials are inconsistent with claims that the statement was extracted through intimidation or inducement, as the defendant maintained an independent position rather than yielding to investigative pressure.

Oyedepo also dismissed allegations of intimidation, pointing out that the statement was taken in the presence of several individuals, making coercion unlikely.

He added that the defendant was duly cautioned and voluntarily signed the cautionary form before making the statement.

He further contended that counsel to Emefiele lacked the basis to challenge the admissibility of the co-defendant’s statement, having initially declined to object when it was tendered, describing the subsequent objection as an abuse of court process.

In response, defence counsel, including Adeyinka Kotoye, SAN, representing the second defendant, and Olalekan Ojo, SAN, for Emefiele, urged the court to reject the statement on the grounds that it was not made voluntarily.

Kotoye argued that the process of obtaining the statement failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of the law, particularly Sections 9(3) and (4) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Law (ACJL) and Sections 17(1) and (2) of the ACJA.

He maintained that where voluntariness is in dispute, video recording of the interrogation process is essential, relying on Supreme Court authorities to argue that such recordings are the most reliable means of verifying compliance with due process.

The senior advocate also questioned the role of the legal practitioner said to have been present during the recording of the statement, alleging that the lawyer was prevented from effectively performing his duty.

He further suggested that the statement may have been influenced by coercion or inducement.

On his part, Ojo relied on Section 29(2) of the Evidence Act, which renders inadmissible any statement obtained through oppression or improper means, arguing that the burden rests on the prosecution to prove voluntariness once it is challenged.

He submitted that the prosecution failed to discharge this burden and faulted it for not addressing key aspects of the defendant’s testimony, including allegations of trauma and lack of proper legal representation.

Following the adoption of final written addresses by all parties in the trial-within-trial, Justice Rahman Oshodi adjourned the matter to May 4, 2026, for ruling on the admissibility of the statement.

The court also fixed June 26 and June 30, 2026, for the continuation of the substantive trial.

Emefiele is facing a 19-count charge bordering on alleged gratification, corrupt demands, and abuse of office linked to large-scale financial transactions, while Omoile is charged with three counts relating to the alleged unlawful acceptance of gifts in connection with dealings involving the Central Bank of Nigeria.

The charges involve transactions estimated at $4.5 billion and ₦2.8 billion, which the prosecution alleges constitute serious breaches of trust and procedure.