Opinion
Illegality Of Sealing off Premises In Nigeria
Across Nigeria, commercial and residential premises are sealed off by government agencies in a purported execution of regulatory or tax mandate. Some private bodies equally seal off the houses of fellow citizens on grounds of non-payment of debts. Even landlords seal off apartments for failure of tenants to pay rents as and when due. However, when premises are sealed off without first obtaining a court order, it is tantamount to self-help—an unlawful method of exercising power without recourse to judicial process. Nigerian courts have consistently condemned this approach on the grounds that it is crude, illegal and unconstitutional.
Self-help refers to actions taken by a person or authority to enforce their alleged rights or claims without judicial authorization. Self-help is particularly unlawful when it involves force, intimidation, or interference with rights without legal sanction. The Supreme Court in the case of The Military Governor of Lagos State v. Chief Emeka Odumegwu Ojukwu (1986) 1 NWLR (Pt. 18) 621, described self-help by government as executive lawlessness, emphasizing that even the State must abide by the rule of law because it rules by law.
Ground rent collection and presidential intervention.
Recently, the Minister of the FCT, Nyesom Wike, justified his decision to seal off offices including the PDP secretariat and the FIRS office in Abuja for alleged violations of urban planning regulations. The controversial nature of the action, executed without prior judicial orders, drew widespread condemnation as critics argued that it represented another instance of executive overreach and self-help by state authorities. The incident highlights the ongoing tension between administrative enforcement and constitutional rights and underscores the urgent need for judicial oversight in property-related sanctions.
Following widespread public concern, President Bola Tinubu intervened in the extrajudicial move by the Authorities of the Federal Capital Territory Authority (FCTA) to enforce ground rent defaults by granting a 14-day grace period before sanctions would apply. This step not only reflected public sensitivity to enforcement actions but also demonstrated the importance of procedural fairness and notice. It further emphasized the role of dialogue and legal compliance over coercive measures like sealing off properties without judicial input.
Judicial decisions on sealing off premises without Court Order
Several statutory frameworks empower authorities to regulate premises—such as the Urban and Regional Planning Act (1992), Lagos State Physical Planning Permit Regulations, Local Government Laws, tax and health laws. However, enforcement must comply with procedural safeguards such as issuance of notices and provision for hearing, failing which the action is void.
In many cases, Nigerian courts have held that no agency of government has the right to seal off any premises without first obtaining a valid court order. This is rooted in Sections 36, 43 and 44 of the 1999 Constitution which guarantee the fundamental rights of citizens to fair hearing, right to privacy of their homes, right to acquire and own immovable property anywhere in Nigeria and right not to have interest in any such property acquired compulsorily in any part of Nigeria except in the manner and for the purposes prescribed by a law. Similar rights are protected by the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights Ratification and Enforcement Act.
Sealing off premises under military regime
Under the defunct military junta, the courts kicked against the practice of sealing off premises. It was the position of the courts that the occupier or owner of a property was entitled to be notified, heard, and subjected to judicial scrutiny before any action could be taken by public authorities and private bodies or individuals. Since the premises of newspaper houses were regularly sealed off under the defunct military junta, a couple of examples are hereunder reviewed.
Concord Press of Nigeria Limited v Attorney-General of the Federation (unreported suit FHC/L/CS/608/94)
In the case of the National Concord Newspaper v Attorney-General of the Federation, the Applicant’s premises along the airport road, Ikeja in Lagos State were sealed off by armed soldiers. In defending the action, the legal notice submitted to the court stated that the premises of the newspaper were “sealed up”. Our law firm sued the military junta on the instructions of the publisher of the newspaper, the late Bashorun M.K.O Abiola.
The presiding Judge, Justice James Oduneye agreed with my submission that since the enabling decree provided that the premises of offending newspaper could be sealed off the legal notice was illegal as it stated that the premises be “sealed up”. The action was also faulted on the grounds that the Applicant was not afforded the opportunity to make a representative to the authorities before the military invasion of the premises. Consequently, the court awarded damages of N500,000 and ordered the immediate reopening of the newspaper. The Court warned against punitive actions taken by government authorities without affording the target an opportunity to be heard
Attorney-General of the Federation & ors v. Punch Nigeria Ltd & Anor (2019) LPELR-48142(SC):
On July 29, 1994, a combined team of soldiers and police personnel invaded and sealed off the premises of the Punch Newspaper in Ikeja, Lagos State. The editor of the newspaper, Bola Bolawole who was on duty at the material time was arrested and detained. On behalf of the newspaper, Chief Gani Fawehinmi SAN challenged the action of the Sani Abacha military junta at the Federal High Court.
In his epochal judgment, Justice T.A. Odunowo condemned the actions of the security agencies and the state for failing to follow due process. The Court held that the rule of law must be observed by the State even under a state of emergency. As the respondent could not justify the reckless abuse of power, the court ordered the respondents to vacate the premises and pay damages of N25 million to PUNCH and an additional sum of N100,000 to the editor, Mr. Bola Bolawole for his unlawful detention.
The appeals filed by the Federal Government against the judgment were dismissed with costs by both the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal. It was the view of both appellate courts that the appeals were lacking in merit.
Sealing off premises under a democratic government
Under the current political dispensation, the premises of any house or business cannot be sealed off without a court order and without affording the owner or occupier the opportunity of fair hearing. In Bamgboye v. University of Ilorin (1999) 10 NWLR (Pt. 622) 290, the Supreme Court emphasized that no authority or institution can take adverse action against a citizen’s property or rights without affording him an opportunity to be heard in accordance with Section 36 of the Constitution.
Unilateral sealing off premises amounts to constructive expropriation or deprivation of property. It is a tortious interference with possessory rights.
In Eze v. Spring Bank Plc (2011) LPELR-CA/PH/255/2009, the Court of Appeal reaffirmed that forcibly locking up premises, denying access, or disrupting possession without judicial authorization constitutes trespass and a violation of the right to property. The Court emphasized that the proper procedure is through court processes, not administrative fiat.
The right to fair hearing is sacrosanct. When a government agency seals off a property without informing the owner or securing judicial approval, it breaches the constitutional guarantee. In Ayo Fayose v. EFCC (unreported Suit No. FHC/IB/CS/47/201), the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) sealed off the Ibadan residence of the Applicant during an investigation. However, it did so without obtaining a court order.
The Federal High Court in Ibadan ruled the action illegal and awarded N10 million in damages against the EFCC for violating the claimant’s constitutional right to property. The Court emphasized that investigative bodies—even those empowered to tackle financial crimes—must operate within constitutional limits. The ruling set a strong precedent against sealing off premises without a court order.
Unlawful sealing of business premises represents institutional disregard for the rule of law. In Association of Motor Dealers of Nigeria v. Nigeria Customs Service, (unreported Suit No. FHC/L/CS/1233/2021), the Federal High Court (per Akintayo Aluko J.) ruled that the Nigeria Customs Service (NCS) was liable for sealing off over 400 car dealerships in Lagos without judicial authorization. The dealers sued for unlawful invasion, and the Court found that the NCS acted outside the bounds of its statutory authority by sealing off the auto shops arbitrarily. In awarding N500 million in general and aggravated damages, the Court condemned the “high-handed and illegal” conduct of the agency, reaffirming that the rule of law cannot be sacrificed on the altar of administrative convenience.
Sealing off premises is inherently coercive and falls under judicial power. Administrative bodies that bypass courts violate separation of powers. In Union Bank of Nigeria Plc v. Alhaji Adams Ajabule & Another [2011] NGSC 5 (15 December 2011), the Supreme Court emphasized that no person or authority is permitted to resort to self-help in enforcing any right, regardless of how legitimate the underlying claim may be. The bank’s attempt to enforce a claim without recourse to judicial adjudication was roundly condemned.
The judgment reiterates that judicial process must precede any enforcement action, and any bypass of the courts amounts to executive lawlessness and abuse of power. This decision is critical in strengthening the argument that regulatory or enforcement bodies cannot unilaterally seal premises or properties without judicial backing.
Conclusion.
It is crystal clear from all the decided cases that the courts have ruled that individuals, financial institutions and government agencies, are not permitted to engage in the collection of rents, levies and taxes without strict compliance with legal and procedural rules. Where the law empowers regulatory agencies to seal off the premises of defaulters, the right of such defaulters to fair hearing must be respected in strict compliance with section 36 of the Nigerian Constitution. Enforcement agencies must act within the bounds of the law by applying for court orders before sealing off the any premises of any person.
Finally, it is pertinent to draw the attention of governments and citizens to the case of Attorney-General of Lagos State vs. Attorney-General of the Federation (2004) 18 NWLR (PT 904) 1 at 127-128, where the Supreme Court enjoined governments and citizens to always resolve disputes by seeking redress in court and refrain form resorting to self help. According to Niki Tobi JSC of blessed memory:
“In a society where the rule of law prevails, self help is not available to the Executive or any arm of government. In view of the fact that such a conduct could breed anarchy and totalitarianism, and since anarchy and totalitarianism are antitheses to democracy, courts operating the rule of law, the life blood of democracy, are under a constitutional duty to stand against such action. The courts are available to accommodate all sorts of grievances that are justiciable in law and section 6 of the Constitution gives the courts power to adjudicate on matters between two or more competing parties. In our democracy all the Governments of this country as well as organizations and individuals must kowtow to the due process of the law and this they can vindicate by resorting to the courts for redress in the event of any grievance.”
Thenewsnigeria.com.ng
By Kola Odepeju
I doubt if Shola Fasure will ever cease to amuse the people in his blind defense of his paymaster, Ogbeni Rauf Aregbesola who was recently described as “Asín ti kò mò pé òhun n rùn” (the shrew that doesn’t know that it smells) by governor Adeleke of Osun for verbally attacking his benefactor, PBAT. But little can one be surprised about Fasure’s blind defense of his boss because he must justify his earnings and secondly, since he himself lacks integrity, it’s easy for him to always come out to come up with drivels in the name of defending his boss.
Fasure’s continued attempts to distort history only shows that he’s either a poor student of history or he’s simply being mischievous. But I like to believe more in the latter being in his DNA. Just like the leopard that doesn’t change its spots, so will a person given to mischief comes out regularly to ply his/her trade. This is the case with Fasure who himself doesn’t believe his own stories with respect to Tinubu/Aregbesola political relationship. Fasure has been trying so hard to distort history though; misinforming the public that Aregbesola is the one that made Tinubu but not vice-versa, he subjects himself to ridicule each time he comes out to turn history upside down and to do surgery to the already battered image of his boss.
One of Nigeria’s veteran journalists, Mayor Akinpelu came out recently to call a spade a spade by telling the public the truths about Aregbesola/Tinubu political relationship. Of course his narration wasn’t in any way different from what the general public had already known before about Aregbesola and his relationship with Tinubu. There was no addition or subtraction in what Mayor Akinpelu said about Aregbesola. All what he said about him are nothing but the truth. No attempt did he make – in the least – either to blackmail Aregbesola or tarnish his image. So my question is; when has saying the truth become an offense under the sky for Fasure to now come out again from his shell and be attacking Akinpelu, an apolitical person who was just doing his job as a social commentator?
Like Akinpelu said in his article, was Aregbesola not scruffy looking prior to his being catapulted by Tinubu? Wasn’t he a pauper before his path crossed with that of Tinubu? Was his usual and regular wear then not Jalamia? Wasn’t his car rickety and smoky like a locomotive? The point is that Aregbesola was a complete pauper before he met Tinubu, a fact known to so many people – except only Fasure – and a fact Aregbesola himself testified to in some occasions; that it was Tinubu that God used to uplift him. I recall here that Aregbesola said in one of our media meetings with him at the State House in Osogbo when he was governor that “if l had not met Tinubu, l would have also still be struggling like you people by now”.
Ogbeni Aregbesola had also said in a video which is in public domain that after God, he owes whatever he’s today to Tinubu. So only God knows where Fasure conjures his own side of the story from which l see as only tales by moonlight different from reality. His story can only be believed by fools and accepted by idiots.
Comparing Aregbesola’s case with that of Yemi Osibajo, Babafemi Ojudu and other names he mentioned in his write-up is preposterous and doesn’t align with common sense in the least. One, these are people who had recorded appreciable successes in their chosen careers and living comfortably before their paths crossed with Tinubu. They were accomplished professionals on their own as at the time their political relationships with Tinubu started; unlike Aregbesola who was a nobody by the time he met Tinubu. I say this without any fear of contradiction because l was on ground at Cresta Laurel where these people served on the transition committees set up by Tinubu then as the governor-elect.
Two, even though these people may have at one time or the other had disagreements with Tinubu, did they ever insult Tinubu as Aregbesola did? Did they display insolence to Tinubu like Rauf? Disagreements are normal in politics but attacking your God-sent benefactor is the most unwise and stupid thing to do by anybody. This is where Shola Fasure’s boss disappointed many of his admirers including this writer.
In conclusion, Shola Fasure in his warped thinking opined that “Batists have slavery in their DNA”. This, to me, is a fallacious opinion of a mind filled with ingratitude. Rather than proving Mayor Akinpelu wrong with evidence about what he (Akinpelu) said about Aregbesola, Fasure was busy attacking him and calling Batists names.
This is a fallacy of ad hominem. Of course Fasure cannot pretend not to know that politics is about hundred percent loyalty. It’s either you’re completely loyal or you take the exit door. Batists are loyal to Tinubu because he deserves it as he has proven to be a reliable and dependable leader. But if Fasure in his wrong perception of Batists as having slavish mentality in their DNA still holds on to this fallacy, then they’re by far better than Aregbesola’s followers who have ingratitude in their DNA just like their leader.
● Odepeju, newspaper columnist and political activist writes from Lagos.
The Christ Apostolic Church (CAC) has issued a strong rebuttal to comments made by Pastor Biodun Fatoyinbo regarding the life and ministry of its first General Evangelist, Apostle Joseph Ayo Babalola.
In a statement signed by Pastor Ade Alawode, Director of Publicity, CAC, the church said it was “necessary to address your recent statements… for the following three reasons: Scriptural Justification… Clarification of Truth… Defense of Legacy.”
The statement was in response to Fatoyinbo’s viral message in which he reportedly acknowledged that Apostle Babalola was highly anointed but “had no money” and went on to ask sarcastically, “Where are his children?”
Click link to read CAC’s Full Statement
Dear Pastor Biodun Fatoyinbo,
Greetings to you in the Name of our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ.
Ordinarily, we do not respond to social media commentaries or controversies. However, we consider it necessary to address your recent statements, which have been widely circulated on your social media platforms, for the following three reasons:
1. Scriptural Justification — The Bible permits us to respond wisely to folly to prevent arrogance (Proverbs 26:5).
2. Clarification of Truth — To correct the misleading narrative you are promoting about ministry and wealth.
3. Defense of Legacy — To address the inaccurate claims you’ve made regarding the life and ministry of Apostle Joseph Ayo Babalola, the first General Evangelist of Christ Apostolic Church.
In one of your trending messages on YouTube, you acknowledged that Apostle Babalola was highly anointed but “had no money”, and then went on to ask sarcastically, “Where are his children?” — a question that was both insensitive and ill-informed.
To equate anointing or ministerial success with material wealth is biblically flawed. The words of Jesus are clear:
“Take heed and beware of covetousness, for one’s life does not consist in the abundance of the things he possesses.” — Luke 12:15.
Yet, your teachings suggest otherwise.
In doing so, you promote what the Bible refers to as Simony — the monetization of spiritual gifts (Acts 8:18–24). The Scriptures do not teach that money is a sign of anointing. Rather, “the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil” (1 Timothy 6:10). Which Bible do you read and preach from?
On the Question of Apostle Babalola’s Children
Ethically speaking, Apostle Babalola had children. Simple arithmetic should help you understand that they would be advanced in age by now — possibly your grandparents’ age. What did you hope to achieve with the mocking question, “Where are the children of Babalola?”
Your statement reflects more on the kind of company you keep, but as a preacher of the Word, shouldn’t your conduct and utterances be guided by Scripture?
Where in the Bible does your brand of prosperity theology originate — one that demeans people for not being wealthy? Isn’t such a message encouraging greed, corruption, and godlessness, especially in a nation already struggling with moral decay?
Setting the Record Straight
For the sake of truth and posterity, let me correct the public misrepresentations you’ve made regarding Apostle Joseph Ayo Babalola:
1. Calling
Apostle Babalola was called by God on October 10, 1928, at the age of 24. His ministry spanned Western and Midwestern Nigeria, and extended to the Gold Coast (now Ghana), marked by undeniable signs and wonders.
2. Wealth and Lifestyle
He was blessed — but not materialistic or greedy. He gave lands to the Church, supported the education of many, fed the poor, and lived sacrificially. He housed more people than just his biological children.
When Queen Elizabeth II visited Nigeria in February 1956, Apostle Babalola was among the honored guests. Would a man in rags be granted such recognition by a colonial government? Certainly not.
He was no fundraiser, yet God supplied his needs. His diaries are filled with divine provisions like: “Ipese Olorun loni: £100.00, £50.00…”
He lived in a befitting home, drove one of the best Ford Jeeps of his time, and funded weddings, education, and apprenticeship programs — all without exploiting the pulpit.
3. Family
His children — Mama Eunice Wuraola Ogini and Apeke Adeniyi — are alive, blessed, fulfilled, and quietly serving the Lord in their respective churches. They are not loud, ostentatious, or greedy.
4. Legacy
Apostle Babalola’s anointing impacted generations. More than 66 years after his passing, his legacy continues to inspire and bless countless lives and ministries. That is true impact.
Let me pose a question to you:
When Peter said in Acts 3:6, “Silver and gold I do not have…” — was he still anointed or not?
I leave that for you to ponder.
5. Conclusion
The measure of a believer’s anointing is not in material accumulation, but in sacrificial service.
“For the Kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.” — Romans 14:17.
Jesus taught:
“Whoever desires to be great among you, let him be your servant… just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve.” — Matthew 20:25–28.
Once again,
“Take heed and beware of covetousness, for one’s life does not consist in the abundance of the things he possesses.” — Luke 12:15.
May God give us all the grace to rightly divide the Word of Truth, and to walk in humility, reverence, and godly wisdom.
Pastor Ade ALAWODE (Director of Publicity, Christ Apostolic Church)
Prof Tukur Muhammad-Baba, Publicity Secretary of the Arewa Consultative Forum, ACF, has said that former President needs to do more if he will stand in for the forthcoming presidential election in 2027.
The Arewa’s spokesman said GEJ needs to sell and offer himself as an alternative, showing he’s now different from the Goodluck Jonathan we knew as a person.
Muhammad-Baba stated this on Thursday while fielding questions on Arise Television’s Morning Show programme.
The statement comes amid indications are emerging that Jonathan is ready to contest the 2027 presidential election.
The Bayelsa politician is said to be getting set to battle President Bola Tinubu for the nation’s number one job.
There has been speculation about whether Jonathan will fly the flag of the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP.
He said: “But, you know, Goodluck Jonathan will be a candidate. But of course, he needs to do a lot more to sell himself, to offer himself as an alternative, to show that he’s now different from the Goodluck Jonathan we knew as a person. Circumstances have turned out that some of the criticisms against him were simply political and so on.
“Well, anybody could be a candidate. But I think, given the circumstances right now in the country, the difficulties people are facing the challenging the economic conditions, it will take a lot more for a politician, whether they are from the south, the north or from the moon, to convince themselves, to convince the electorate, that they are different, or that they offer a new alternative.”
BREAKING: ADC Claims Victory Against APC In Kaduna Bye-Election
Dangote: Old 2024 Prophecy By Bright The Seer About BBNaija Phyna’s Sister’s Accident Surfaces, Many Kick
Tinubu’s Government Lacks Effective Communication Strategy - Babangida
-
Lifestyle2 weeks agoJAPA TO HELL: ‘I Sold My Father’s House For ₦45Million To Relocate To Canada Because Of Bad Government, One Year After I’m Still Jobless’
-
News1 week ago2027 Election: Work Against North If Obi Can’t Become President, Archbishop Tells Igbos
-
News1 week agoWinner Emerges As AI Predicts 2027 Presidential Election Between Tinubu, Obi, Atiku (See Result)
-
Lifestyle2 weeks ago4 Wives, 300 Cars, 38 Private Jets And Gold Boats: Meet The Richest King In The World
-
News1 week ago2027 SHOCKER! New Prophecy Reveals On Peter Obi’s Joint Ticket With Atiku
-
Politics1 week agoPrimate Ayodele’s Prophecy On Jonathan’s Running Mate For 2027 Election Resurface
-
News1 week ago2027 Election: Jonathan, Peter Obi Deal Revealed
-
Lifestyle5 days agoVIDEO: Mixed Reactions As Pastor Abel Damina Drops BOMBSHELL On Marrying Two Wives As Christian