The House of Representatives has ordered an immediate suspension of development activities on a disputed parcel of land in Ngor Okpala Local Government Area of Imo State and directed that armed men allegedly intimidating residents be disarmed.
The orders followed allegations of illegal land acquisition, threats to villagers, shootings and other abuses in Umundoche and neighbouring communities, as the House Committee on Public Petitions began considering a petition over the dispute.
At its hearing on Wednesday, the committee directed that no further work be carried out on the land until the matter was resolved through the committee or other appropriate channels.
The petition, numbered 901 of 2026, was filed by J.U. Okoye Chambers against Prince Charles Amadi, popularly known as Chavon, Chikadibia Anyanwu and Chidubem Nwosu. It also names HRH Eze Lambert Unuoha, the traditional ruler of Nma 1 of Obioma Autonomous Community, as a respondent.
The petition, cited by The PUNCH, alleged the illegal acquisition of more than 2,500 hectares of land belonging to Umuoyere, Umundioche and Okwuruma in Obioma Autonomous Community, as well as Umueme in Obike Autonomous Community, all in Ngor Okpala.
Other allegations include attempted murder, shootings, invasion of the communities by armed men, desecration of a corpse, abuse of police powers and breach of a memorandum of understanding.
Presiding over the hearing on behalf of the committee chairman, the Deputy Chairman, Matthew Nwogu, said the parties must refrain from further activities on the disputed property pending the resolution of the matter.
“There are orders that no more actions on this land until this matter is resolved, either through this place, or through which other means you want to resolve it. That’s the first order. No more putting up caterpillars or bulldozers in that land,” he said.
Nwogu also directed that the armed men allegedly operating in the community be disarmed, saying the committee had contacted the Department of State Services and the police to establish whether they had supplied the weapons.
“All the boys that are armed in that village should be disarmed. Because we have made contact with the DSS. They said they didn’t give them the gun. The police said they didn’t,” he said.
He added that the directives were necessary to prevent further escalation while the committee examined the competing claims.
The hearing was marked by disagreements between lawyers representing the parties over a pending court case and whether its existence should prevent the committee from considering the petition.
Counsel to Charles Farms Limited, identified during the proceedings as one of the parties involved in the dispute, maintained that his clients had lawfully acquired the land and made the necessary payments to the relevant parties.
He dismissed the allegations as false and disclosed that his clients had instituted legal proceedings against the petitioners.
According to the lawyer, he had written to the committee on September 28, 2026, explaining his clients’ position and providing details of the court action.
He, however, admitted that he had not brought the supporting court documents to the hearing.
The committee chairman rejected the letter and oral explanations as insufficient, insisting that certified documents were needed to establish the status and scope of the case.
The lawyer subsequently undertook to organise the available documents, certify the relevant papers and submit them to the committee.
A member of the committee cautioned against treating the existence of a court case as an automatic reason to discontinue the legislative investigation.
He said the committee had a constitutional responsibility to consider petitions submitted to the National Assembly and that the court proceedings would have to be examined to determine whether they covered all the issues raised by the petitioners.
“That a matter is in court does not immediately stop us from doing our duty. This is a constitutional committee. One of the very few committees written into the Nigerian constitution,” the lawmaker said.
He urged the parties to respect the legislative process and allow the petitioners to present their grievances.
“Tomorrow he might be the one petitioning this National Assembly over an issue. So let us respect processes, respect our constitution. And then respect the will of the people who have come here to seek justice,” he added.
The lawmaker also called for sufficient time for the respondents to prepare formal replies, stressing the need for documentary evidence from both sides.
Counsel to the petitioners, Julius Onyenaucheya, told the committee that the community had made efforts to resolve the dispute before seeking the intervention of the House.
He said the first petition was submitted on July 17, 2026, followed by another on August 14 and a subsequent petition later that month.
Onyenaucheya alleged that repeated attempts to contact the respondents and settle the matter with the community had failed.
He further claimed that the court action was initiated after the petitions had been submitted to the House, alleging that it was intended to frustrate the committee’s proceedings.
The lawyer accused the respondents of using security personnel and armed men to intimidate residents and restrict their access to the community.
He urged the committee to ensure that the alleged intimidation stopped while the petition was under consideration.
Onyenaucheya also questioned the circumstances surrounding the land acquisition, calling on the parties to demonstrate that they had complied with customary procedures governing the acquisition of community land.
He raised concerns about the environmental consequences of the proposed development and asked whether an environmental impact assessment had been conducted and made available to the affected residents.
According to him, the community was entitled to be consulted on activities that could affect its land and environment.
The respondents’ representatives disputed the allegations, insisting that the land had been legally acquired.
The committee also sought evidence to clarify conflicting accounts of the alleged intimidation and the presence of armed men in the community.
During the hearing, a representative of one of the respondents challenged claims that armed men had visited the area and threatened residents.
He said he had been in the area since Monday and disputed claims that he was present at the location where the alleged incident occurred. He offered to provide his flight itinerary and hotel booking details in support of his account.
The committee chairman subsequently asked the parties to submit available video recordings and photographs to help establish what happened.
He said the committee wanted to examine verifiable evidence rather than rely solely on conflicting oral accounts.
The committee adjourned the matter until November 2026 to enable the respondents to study the petition, prepare their formal responses and submit the necessary documents.
The allegations against the respondents have not been established as findings of fact. While the petitioners allege illegal acquisition and intimidation, the respondents maintain that the land was lawfully acquired.
The committee’s final determination is expected to depend on its examination of the parties’ submissions and supporting evidence.