I believe those teasing the FCT Minister, Nyesom Wike, as a land grabber have no idea of the extent of power he, like state governors, holds over land within his jurisdiction. Most of the criticisms directed at him over this dispute are projections of personal dislike for the man rather than sound legal reasoning. While it may be agreed that he should not have been physically present at the scene, the law vests power over land matters squarely in his office.
We are under a civilian administration, and any claim that a military officer can interfere with a public institution’s lawful functions undermines the principle of constitutional supremacy. Those arguing that the young officer was merely obeying an order must show where, in the Armed Forces Act, obedience to a manifestly unlawful command qualifies as a defence under the doctrine of superior orders. The rule of law remains supreme over military command.
Section 5 of the Land Use Act gives the Governor, or the FCT Minister in Abuja, wide powers to manage all land within their jurisdiction. In simple terms, this means the Governor can legally grant anyone the right to occupy and use land for any purpose—whether for housing, business, farming, or public use. The Governor can also authorise someone to use part of another person’s land for specific purposes, charge rent for land that has been allocated, and review or change that rent from time to time, as stated in the land documents or whenever necessary.
The Governor, or the FCT Minister in Abuja, can impose penalties on anyone who fails to develop land as required or transfers it without approval. He may also waive conditions or extend deadlines if compliance is difficult or unfair. These powers make him the legal trustee of all land, with authority to allocate, manage, and recover it for the public interest. When Section 28 allows revocation for overriding public interest, it simply affirms the Governor’s lawful control over land under the Act.
No one, regardless of status, can seize or develop land without complying with legal procedures. Lawful occupancy requires a valid Right of Occupancy, often evidenced by a Certificate of Occupancy, and every transaction must have the Governor’s consent under Section 22. Any transaction outside this legal framework is null and void. The Land Use Act also gives the Governor’s land decisions strong protection from judicial interference. Section 47 ousts the jurisdiction of the courts from questioning land allocations or revocations made under the Act. The courts’ role is limited to interpretation, not reversal, of powers that the Act itself has vested. Without a valid injunction, the Minister’s administrative actions stand, and public disagreement remains opinion, not law.
The Governor and the FCT Minister derive their authority directly from the Land Use Act. Unless a court of competent jurisdiction grants an injunction stating otherwise, that authority remains unchallenged. The uproar over this matter is largely emotional and political. There are no enough details to establish that the Minister acted within the bounds of the law, but that supposed defiance by the officer cannot be justified as obedience to a lawful command. The rule of law must prevail over sentiment and military interference in civil administration.