Lawyer drags Yobe state government to court over alleged displacement of communities

An Abuja-based human rights lawyer, I.G. Muhammad, has instituted a ₦15 billion suit against the Yobe state government and five other defendants over the alleged unlawful revocation of ancestral lands belonging to 79 landholders from Mazaga, Jigawa and Jahunawa communities in Potiskum Local Government Area (LGA) of the state.

The suit, filed on September 9, 2026, before the High Court of Justice of Yobe State, Potiskum Judicial Division, challenges the alleged revocation and subsequent occupation of approximately 148.3 hectares of land reportedly earmarked for the Federal College of Education (Technical), Potiskum. Blueprint reports

The claimants, Adamu Tori, Adamu Maina and Nuhu Idriss Mohammed, instituted the action on their behalf and that of 76 other affected landholders from the three communities.

The defendants are the Yobe state government, the state governor, the Attorney-General of Yobe State, Yobe Geographic Information Services, Potiskum LGA and the Federal College of Education (Technical), Potiskum.

The claimants are asking the court to determine the legality of the disputed revocation, restore their possession of the lands and award compensation for the alleged trespass, dispossession, destruction of property, hardship and other losses they claim to have suffered.

The allegations contained in the suit have yet to be determined by the court.

Claimants trace ownership to 1875

According to Muhammad, the claimants maintain that their families and forebears have occupied, cultivated, developed and exercised ownership rights over the disputed lands since 1875, decades before the enactment of the Land Use Act of 1978.

The lawyer said the claimants regard the lands as ancestral inheritance that has sustained their families and communities over generations.

He explained that the dispute arose from what the claimants described as the purported revocation of their interests in the land to facilitate its allocation to the Federal College of Education (Technical), Potiskum.

The court processes reportedly put the total area in dispute at approximately 148.3 hectares.

Muhammad said the claimants contend that the revocation did not comply with the applicable legal requirements, particularly the procedures governing the withdrawal of rights of occupancy and the notification of affected landholders.

“The central issue before the court is whether the rights of these landholders were lawfully revoked and whether the applicable statutory procedures were followed,” he said.

The claimants allege that valid notices of revocation were not served on them as required by law before the disputed lands were entered and occupied.

They consequently argue that the actions complained of amounted to unlawful dispossession and interference with their property rights.

The court is expected to consider the parties’ respective claims and determine whether the revocation and subsequent occupation of the lands were lawful.

‘Government is not above the law’

Muhammad said the decision to institute the suit was informed by the need to ensure that government authorities and public institutions remain accountable to the law when exercising statutory powers affecting private property.

He maintained that the status of the defendants as government institutions and public officeholders does not prevent individuals who believe their rights have been violated from seeking judicial redress.

“Government is not above the law. Where a person believes that an action taken by a government or any public authority has unlawfully infringed their rights, the courts provide a constitutional avenue to challenge that action,” he said.

According to him, public authorities are required to exercise their powers within the limits prescribed by the Constitution and relevant legislation.

He added that the judicial process provides an independent mechanism for resolving disputes between citizens and government institutions without resorting to confrontation or other unlawful means.

“The law must apply to everyone. Public authorities must exercise their powers within the limits prescribed by law, and where an alleged illegality occurs, an affected person should be able to approach a competent court for redress,” Muhammad said.

He described the suit as an exercise of the claimants’ legal rights rather than an attempt to undermine the government or the educational institution involved in the dispute.

Muhammad further emphasised that the court, rather than any of the parties, would ultimately determine whether the purported revocation was lawful and whether the claimants were entitled to the reliefs sought.

Lawyer explains why communities are seeking justice

Explaining his motivation for taking up the case, Muhammad said the affected landholders needed an opportunity to protect property they considered their ancestral inheritance.

He noted that land disputes could have far-reaching consequences for families whose livelihoods, history and social identity were closely connected to their ancestral holdings.

According to him, the affected communities approached the legal process to seek protection of their claimed interests and a judicial determination of the circumstances surrounding the disputed revocation.

“These are people who have approached the courts to protect what they believe is rightfully theirs. When people feel that they have lost their land and have nowhere else to turn, access to justice becomes particularly important,” he said.

The lawyer said legal practitioners had a responsibility to ensure that people who believed their rights had been infringed could present their grievances before a competent court.

He added that the circumstances of the affected communities should not prevent them from pursuing lawful remedies.

“Our objective is to help these landholders pursue the restoration of their property rights through lawful means and to ensure that their grievances are heard and determined according to the law,” he said.

Muhammad also said the action was intended to secure judicial protection for the claimants and prevent further interference with the disputed lands, subject to the orders the court might make.

Why claimants are demanding ₦15 billon compensation

The suit seeks ₦15 billion in compensation for the alleged consequences of the disputed actions, including trespass, forceful dispossession, destruction of property, hardship and inconvenience.

Muhammad explained that the monetary claim formed part of the reliefs being sought alongside orders aimed at protecting the claimants’ interests in the land.

He said the claimants wanted the court to determine the extent of any loss for which the defendants might be legally responsible and grant appropriate remedies based on the evidence and applicable law.

According to him, the case extends beyond financial compensation to questions concerning property rights, ancestral inheritance and compliance with statutory procedures by public authorities.

“The most important thing is that the rights of the affected people must be determined by the court. Where unlawful conduct and resulting loss are established, the law provides remedies that may be available to the injured parties,” he said.

The claimants are asking the court to set aside the purported revocation and order the Federal College of Education (Technical), Potiskum, to vacate the disputed lands and restore possession to the affected landholders.

They are also seeking an injunction restraining further interference with their possession of the property.

In addition, the claimants want the court to direct the relevant authorities to comply with the Land Use Act and Section 44 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, in any future lawful acquisition affecting the lands.

The requested orders, if granted, could have implications for the continued occupation and use of the disputed property. However, the court has yet to determine the merits of the claims or the entitlement of the parties to the reliefs sought.

Land Use Act, constitutional safeguards in focus

The dispute raises questions about the relationship between government powers over land administration and the legal protections available to individuals claiming interests in property.

The Land Use Act regulates the administration of land in Nigeria and provides the legal framework governing rights of occupancy, revocation and other aspects of land management.

Section 44 of the Constitution also provides safeguards concerning compulsory acquisition of property, subject to the conditions and exceptions prescribed by the Constitution and applicable laws.

The precise application of these provisions to the disputed lands will depend on the evidence presented, the nature of the interests claimed and the legal grounds upon which the revocation was purportedly undertaken.

The claimants’ case places particular emphasis on the alleged failure to serve valid notices of revocation and the circumstances in which the land was subsequently occupied.

The defendants will have the opportunity to respond to the allegations through the judicial process, while the court will determine the issues based on the applicable law and evidence before it.

The suit is being handled by I.G. Muhammad of Magaji Mato Ibrahim, SAN & Co., also known as Supreme Chambers, Abuja.

As proceedings progress, the case is expected to bring the disputed land interests, the legality of the alleged revocation and the remedies available to the affected landholders before the court for determination.

Until the court delivers its decision, the allegations against the Yobe state government and the other defendants remain claims awaiting judicial determination.