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
The war in Sudan is no longer a Sudanese war. What began on April 15, 2023 as a power struggle between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) under General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF) led by Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, has mutated into one of the world’s worst humanitarian catastrophes and a full-blown proxy conflict.
The numbers are staggering.
According to UN estimates, nearly 200,000 people have been killed. More than 12 million have been displaced internally and across borders. Famine is no longer a risk — it is a reality in Darfur and parts of Khartoum. UN agencies have warned repeatedly that conditions will worsen as the fighting escalates and humanitarian access shrinks.
And yet, no regional initiative from IGAD, no African Union roadmap, no UN Security Council resolution has managed to halt the violence. Control of the war has slipped beyond the two belligerents. Weapons, money, drones and mercenaries flow in from outside, ensuring that the battlefield evolves faster than diplomacy.
This week, Massad Boulos, the US President’s Senior Adviser for Arab and African Affairs, made a fresh appeal on X: “The warring parties in Sudan must accept a humanitarian truce as the first step toward lasting peace,” he wrote, adding that Sudanese people deserve “an opportunity to engage in a political process leading to peace in a united Sudan.” It was a familiar call. What is unfamiliar is what Washington is now alleging happened on the battlefield.
America’s Position: No Legitimate Government In Khartoum
According to PMnewsnigeria.com,
Washington’s assessment of Sudan’s political legitimacy is brutally frank. The US State Department has stated that neither the SAF nor the RSF, nor their leaders, constitute a legitimate and constitutional government. Both rule solely by force of arms, and therefore both are unqualified to govern the country.
In practice, however, the international system still treats the army as Sudan’s de facto official authority. Burhan’s administration in Port Sudan issues passports, sits in international meetings, and addresses the UN. This is despite the fact that he came to power through a military coup in 2021, derailing a civilian transition, and despite grave allegations of abuses including indiscriminate airstrikes, killings of civilians, and obstruction of humanitarian aid.
The State Department says it has repeatedly demanded an unconditional humanitarian truce and a commitment to an inclusive political dialogue that leads to civilian rule. Those demands have been ignored.
The diplomatic rupture deepened this week. Reuters reported that the United States refused to grant a visa to General Burhan ahead of his scheduled address to the 81st UN General Assembly on Thursday.
Sudanese sources said the move was linked to a US-backed ceasefire proposal that Port Sudan opposes. The decision, if confirmed, would mark the lowest point in US-Sudanese relations since the war began. A Sudanese source told Reuters that Foreign Minister Mohieddin Salem would deliver the speech instead.
PMnewsnigeria.com notes it is not an isolated sanction. In January 2025, the United States imposed sanctions on Burhan personally, accusing the SAF under his leadership of violating international humanitarian law, targeting civilians and civilian infrastructure, carrying out extrajudicial killings, and obstructing aid delivery. Yet Burhan remained a central interlocutor for international diplomats.
Dragging Sudan Into The Prohibited
It is against this background that the chemical weapons allegation has emerged — potentially the most serious escalation in the war’s legal and moral dimension.
Sudan has been a State Party to the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) since 1999.
The Convention bans the development, production, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons. Membership was supposed to close that chapter forever.
In May 2025, the US State Department declared that it had determined that the Sudanese Armed Forces had used chemical weapons against the RSF. Washington imposed sanctions on Sudan as a consequence. It did not stop there.
It brought the case to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) in The Hague, calling on Sudan to comply fully with its obligations and to allow independent verification.
Khartoum responded with a national investigation that concluded no evidence of chemical weapons use had been found.
Washington rejected the national mechanism outright, stating that a self-investigation cannot substitute for independent international verification.
For months, the issue simmered. Then in September 2026, two major American newspapers — The Washington Post and The New York Times — published investigative reports citing classified documents and intelligence. Both alleged that the Sudanese army had established a stockpile of chemical weapons, including munitions and bombs containing chlorine gas, and had used them against RSF positions during the ongoing war.
The army categorically denies the allegations.
The OPCW is the only specialized international body technically capable of confirming such use through sample collection, chain-of-custody procedures and laboratory analysis. But its ability to operate inside an active war zone like Sudan is severely limited. So far, the independent international investigation has been minimal compared to the seriousness of the allegation.
The Justice Gap The World Cannot Ignore
This creates what analysts call a normalization of alleged war crimes. The RSF is rightly pursued for documented atrocities, including ethnically motivated killings in Darfur and widespread sexual violence. But the SAF, despite allegations of chemical weapons use, indiscriminate bombing, and the suspension of Burhan’s visa, continues to be presented as the legitimate voice of Sudan at the UN.
According to PMnewsnigeria.com, the United Nations International Independent Fact-Finding Mission for Sudan has tried to correct that imbalance. Its report states that both sides have committed serious violations of international law and that some drone operations could amount to war crimes. It also notes that recruitment of foreign fighters and external support networks are fueling the war, strengthening the military capabilities of both parties and enabling increasingly sophisticated operations with devastating civilian consequences.
The Mission reminds states linked to these supply chains that they have strict obligations under international law to exercise due diligence, investigate and halt illicit mercenary and supply networks operating from or through their territories, prevent violations, and enforce the UN arms embargo.
The central question for the international community is no longer whether Sudan’s war is dangerous — it is how dangerous it has become. If chemical weapons have indeed been used, Sudan has crossed a red line that implicates not just Burhan, but the global non-proliferation regime itself.
The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has arrested Olori Halima Tejuoso in connection with an alleged N600 million fraud involving Mrs Mary Oluwaseye Sholoye and Mallam Ibrahim Gidado.
Tejuoso was arrested on Tuesday, September 15, 2026, after allegedly failing to honour an invitation by the Commission following her release on administrative bail.
Confirming the development, EFCC spokesman, Dele Oyewale, said Tejuoso was arrested after she allegedly jumped the administrative bail earlier granted to her by the Commission.
According to Oyewale, Gidado, who is also linked to the investigation, had been arrested earlier and arraigned before a court.
Tejuoso was reportedly accused of obtaining about N600 million from Sholoye by false pretence in connection with Gidado.
She had earlier appeared before the EFCC, where she reportedly told investigators that Gidado had allegedly defrauded her of the money she was accused of collecting from Sholoye.
However, following Gidado’s arrest and subsequent invitation by the Commission, Tejuoso reportedly failed to appear and could not be reached.
The EFCC subsequently declared her wanted on April 27, 2026, as part of its investigation into the alleged fraud.
Her arrest on September 15 brings to an end several months during which the Commission had been seeking her whereabouts.
The latest development is expected to allow the EFCC to proceed with further investigation into the circumstances surrounding the alleged N600 million transaction and Tejuoso’s relationship with the other parties involved.
The Commission’s position indicates that the matter involving Gidado has already progressed to court, while further legal steps concerning Tejuoso are expected to follow the completion of the ongoing investigation and necessary legal processes.
However, the allegations against Tejuoso remain unproven until determined by a court of competent jurisdiction.
All parties involved are presumed innocent unless and until found guilty by a court of law.
-Source: Daily Times Nigeria
Arise Television co-host Rufai Oseni has faced backlash online after sharing the outcome of an online civic opinion poll that showed Peter Obi leading a hypothetical 2027 presidential field by a wide margin.
On Tuesday, September 15, 2026, Oseni posted a screenshot from the Nigeria Elections Intelligence System (NEIS) platform with a single-word caption: “Polling.”
The image showed Peter Obi of the Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC) commanding 87.4 per cent of counted responses.
Atiku Abubakar of the African Democratic Congress (ADC) followed with 5.1 per cent, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu of the All Progressives Congress (APC) at 4.6 per cent, and Oluseyi Abiodun Makinde of the Allied Peoples Movement (APM) at 1.9 per cent.
The figures were drawn from more than 2,500 counted responses. NEIS describes itself as an independent, non-partisan election intelligence platform that conducts pre-election civic opinion polls and maps polling units across Nigeria. The results Rufai Oseni shared were from one such online exercise and carry no official electoral weight.
The post sparked immediate pushback. Several social media users argued that Rufai Oseni’s own follower base tilts heavily towards Peter Obi supporters, known as Obidients, making the poll’s findings a reflection of his audience rather than the broader Nigerian electorate.
Others pointed out that real elections are decided by voters at polling units, not by online participants, and that the results had no bearing on what a 2027 contest would actually look like. The debate unfolds as preparations for the 2027 general elections gain momentum.
Nigeria’s Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has already published a final list of presidential candidates, which includes Tinubu, Obi, Atiku and Makinde running on their respective platforms.
Check out Rufai Oseni’s X post about the results of the online 2027 presidential poll below: 
@gsbabatunde wrote: “Rufai will remain immature. You packed Obidense as followers and you are conducting Polls among them knowing fully well that the actual election involves real Voters and not Bots. What sort of ‘Childish Journalist’ are You???”
@Dailymercytye said: “They’ve start their online election gaslighting again. When they lose the real election, it’ll suddenly become a ‘rigged election’ to them and they’ll start shouting rigging.”
@adewalenisa reacted: “Same way you misled Olumide Akpata in Edo Governorship……”
@IsraelYusuf13 commented: “Twitter no be polling unit. Enough of all this online noise and let face our country”
@Commyhot1 wrote: “Online President PitObi @PeterObi,
@ruffydfire the online chairman has declared you winner oooh! Congratulations online president. Una go collect woto woto come January 16”
@AdekunleAdelaj1 stated: “Some people will call for presidential debate where this type of person will be one of them and say it’s going to be a fair one. It’s only Morons that can hold such beliefs. Online president i congratulate you as your OLOFO, chairman has declared you winner.”
@tman_musa added: “Rufai when you really want to wise up and understand online polls is not real life.”
Salary: Fresh Update Emerges On Payment To Nigerian Workers
Obasanjo’s Son Picks Side In 2027 Race
