Business
LAND OWNERS ALLEGEDLY TAKE LAFARGE TO COURT OVER INJUSTICE
Some land owners of Ijagba community and their neighbors in Sagamu, Ogun state have taken Lafarge cement WAPCO Nigeria to court over an expanse area of land which was compulsorily acquired by the military government of the state late in the 1990s.
Reports have it that over 1,000 hectares of land was acquired for public purposes abosolutely and especially for the establishment of cement factory. After the acquisition, the land owners reportedly challenged the surveyors who were working on the land which they told then (Land owners) that they (Surveyors) were staff of the state government who were paving way for a state owned cement factory in which the children of the community would have unrestricted access to employment. The land owners were happy and gladly agreed with the acquisition.
But at a meeting held at the Onijagba’s palace on Wednesday,11th July, 2007 over the crop enumeration exercise, representatives of both of the state government and Lafarge disclosed that the land was going to be transferred to Lafarge to exploit. This angered the land owners who spoke in one voice that Lafarge should pay the market value of the land. Since there had been open confrontation between the land owners on the land, Lafarge and Ogun state government, on the other hand, this led to the land owners’ letter of 19th May, 2008 demanding full compensation from Lafarge. In order to get a full picture of the story, this column made enquiries from Lafargeholcim in Europe, the parent company of Lafarge cement WAPCO Nig. PLC in an email on Nov. 4, 2015 and demanded answers to a 14-list set of questions. The questions bordered on why Lafarge should allow themselves to be dragged to court over a land they would immensely exploit for profit.
Since Lafargeholcim have not bothered to respond to our enquiry, we take it probably a corporate policy of the company not to countenance agitations that may benefit them. The land owners claim to have been so treated by Lafarge in Nigeria.
This column has therefore decided to go ahead with the story as far as our investigation can support.
Since the land owners letter on 19th May, 2008 referred to the land owners have reportedly made a series of overtures to Lafarge with a view to arriving at an amicable settlement. The company’s attitude had been negative.
In March 2014, the land owners reportedly instituted a legal action against Lafarge claiming full compensation for the land that had been transferred to them. The ogun state government was joined in the action.
After the completion of the crops enumeration excises the state government wrote to Lafarge to send their cheque for some #32,000,000 as compensation for the crops and structures. The sum was distributed by the state government to the land owners in accordance with the crops enumeration list. This list was prepared well ahead of the meeting at Onijagba’s palace in July 2007.
Lafarge is reportedly claiming that the 32m for crops was for the land. This shows that one hectare of land would cost about #32,000 i.e a plot of land of 60ft x 120ft will cost #2,134 or less than ten euro!!! Can’t someone in Lafarge be serious?
On its own part, the state government is contesting that the action by the land owners was statute barred but the court has ruled that it was not statute barred as the transfer of the land to Lafarge took place in 2008/2009. All other grounds of objection by the state government were also ruled in favor of the land owners.
It is understood that subsequent to the court ruling in the proceeding paragraph, the land owners had again extended their hand of fellowship to Lafarge for dialogue which the company hasn’t reciprocated.
The question bothering this column is why Lafarge should think they should seize the land which has been the source of livelihood for over three and a half centuries from the land owners and pay nothing for it. They want to exploit this land for profit and send 60% of such profit to shareholders outside the shores of the country. The remaining 40% will be distributed to less than 50% of the Nigerian population and probably none of the land owners benefiting from such distribution. The land owners have reportedly decided to resist the injustice.
we sent them messages for confirmation but no response.
“My name is Ifetayo Adeniyi, a Publisher and Celebrity journalist based in Lagos, Nigeria. I came across a story few weeks back and I decided to investigate it for me to have a balanced story. The story is all about THE BAD AND UGLY SIDE OF LAFARGEHOLCIM DEALING TOWARDS LAND OWNERS (IJAGBA COMMUNITY) IN SAGAMU, OGUN STATE, NIGERIA. I have some questions begging for answers so that it would not be a one side story by the time I break the news to the international community. I have some documents that are in my possession during the course of my investigation. I also discovered that few elite and royal father too have been compromised with members of your top management here in Sagamu and Nigeria to the detriment of the Land owners from Ijagba community, in Sagamu, Ogun State. This act cast shadow on your integrity as multi National company.The few elite can not champion the course of Ijagba community land owners because of their selfish interest. I’ll appreciate your sincere response. 1. How much do they pay Land owners from Ijagba community for the 1001 hectares of land that they are operating on now? Not crops and structure compensation. 2. Are they aware that the said land was meant for Public Use when government discussed with the landowners before they gave it to Lafarge wapco cement now Lafargeholcim? then converts it for commercial use which is contrary to the law without paying the landowners from Ijagba community. 3. Do they connived with the government officials to deceived the land owner Ijagba community that they would be paid for their land and other remuneration as dimmed fits. 4. In 2007, when wapco Lafarge cement then paid about #32,000,000 for the crops and structure to Ijagba community landowners…did the document stated 1001 hectares of land was for free ? 5.Are they aware that the land owners Ijagba community source of income were their farmlands (1001 hectares) that was taken without paying for the it? 6. Do they connived with few elite in the community who has nothing to do with landowners (Ijagba community) to suppress their voices? 7. Is there any of their CSR projects located within Ijagba community for direct benefits of the land owners or was it a compensation or hijacked by few elite and royal father to their immediate community in Sagamu?. 8. Are they aware that majority of the landowners (Ijagba community) are leaving in abject poverty? 9. Is Lafargeholcim ready to pay for the land to the Land owners (Ijagba community) or not? When they make billions of naira every year on the said land. 10. Is Lafargeholcim aware that the land owners (Ijagba community) are going through emotional tortures that has lead to the death of some of them? 11. Is that the way Lafargeholcim operates in other countries? I mean taking over landed property of about 1001 hectares without paying for the land? 12. Is the payment for the crops and structures because of air pollution caused by your able company that destroyed their means of livelihood is the same thing as paying for the land? 13. During my investigation I understand that the landowners would have preferred out of court settlement after they won the case at the high court but few top management of Lafargeholcim and the few influential people in sagamu always block the Avenue for the two parties to meet because of their selfish interest. Is that the way you have been doing it in other countries? 14. Lafargeholcim going to court over the used of the said land by them without paying for it, in whose interest? Is it to delay justice until the landowners die or to deny the landowners of their heritage and right because they can’t afford Senior Advocate of Nigeria? Thanks and God bless you as I wait on your reply within 5days before I would go to the Press. Thanks +234-705-311-1111. [email protected]“
Riceocracy: When Tinubu and the APC Government Substitutes Governance with Handouts
By George Omagbemi Sylvester
“Tinubu’s administration faces mounting criticism as rice palliatives replace real solutions to Nigeria’s deepening crisis.”
ABUJA, Nigeria — March 17, 2026
A growing wave of public frustration is sweeping across Nigeria as citizens decry what has now been dubbed “Riceocracy” a governance pattern where the government of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu and the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) respond to systemic failures with the distribution of rice rather than meaningful reforms.
Across the country, from major cities like Lagos and Abuja to underserved rural communities, Nigerians are voicing anger over persistent issues: no stable electricity, deteriorating road networks, unaffordable fuel and cooking gas, and a struggling education system. Yet, in response to these structural problems, the government’s most visible intervention has been the distribution of food palliatives; particularly rice.
The central figures in this unfolding crisis are President Tinubu and the APC-led federal and state governments, who have overseen the rollout of these relief measures. On the other side are millions of Nigerians battling rising inflation, joblessness, and declining living standards.
The trend gained momentum following the removal of fuel subsidies in May 2023, a policy decision by the Tinubu administration that triggered a surge in transportation and commodity prices. By 2024 and into 2025, the government intensified the distribution of rice and other palliatives as a stopgap measure to quell public discontent. Now, in 2026, the approach has become a defining feature of the administration’s response to economic hardship.
The “Riceocracy” phenomenon is nationwide. Reports from states such as Kano, Rivers, and Borno show large crowds gathering for rice distribution exercises, even as basic infrastructure continues to decay. Urban centers are not exempt; in cities like Lagos, residents still grapple with erratic power supply and high living costs despite periodic palliative programs.
Analysts point to political convenience and immediate optics. Distributing rice is quick, visible, and politically advantageous, especially in a climate of widespread hardship. However, critics argue that it reflects a deeper governance failure; an inability or unwillingness to implement long-term solutions.
Nobel laureate Wole Soyinka has long warned against superficial governance, describing such approaches as “a betrayal of democratic responsibility.” In the same vein, global economist Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala has stressed that “palliatives may provide temporary relief, but they cannot replace sound economic management and structural reform.”
Political economist Pat Utomi offers a sharper critique: “A state that reduces its responsibility to food sharing risks institutionalizing poverty rather than eliminating it.” His statement captures the growing concern that Nigeria’s leadership is addressing symptoms rather than causes.
The implications are severe. Nigeria’s power sector remains unreliable, forcing businesses to depend on costly alternatives. Road infrastructure continues to hinder economic activity, while the education sector suffers from underfunding and frequent disruptions. Despite these challenges, rice distribution has become the most consistent government response.
Critics further argue that this strategy fosters dependency and weakens civic engagement. Instead of demanding accountability, citizens may feel compelled to accept handouts as substitutes for rights and services. Allegations of mismanagement and politicization of palliative distribution also persist, raising questions about transparency and fairness.
The term “Riceocracy” may sound satirical, but it reflects a sobering reality. It highlights a governance model where survival replaces development, and where public policy is reduced to emergency relief rather than strategic planning.
As Nigeria marks this moment on March 17, 2026, the message from scholars, civil society, and frustrated citizens is unmistakable: rice cannot fix a broken system. Only deliberate investments in infrastructure, education, energy, and economic productivity can restore confidence and chart a sustainable path forward.
Until then, the image of Nigerians queuing for bags of rice will remain a stark symbol of a nation still searching for leadership that goes beyond palliatives to deliver real progress.
ZENITH BANK OPENS MANCHESTER BRANCH TO SUPPORT CROSS-BORDER TRADE AND INVESTMENT
Zenith Bank Plc has announced the opening of a new branch in Manchester, United Kingdom, marking another significant milestone in the bank’s international growth and its commitment to strengthening financial connections between Africa and global markets.
The official opening ceremony, scheduled to hold on Tuesday, March 17, 2026, is expected to attract government officials from Nigeria and the United Kingdom, regulators, investors, customers, and business leaders from both countries, underscoring the growing economic ties and investment opportunities between the two markets.
The new Manchester branch will complement Zenith Bank’s existing operations in the United Kingdom and serve as a strategic hub for supporting businesses engaged in international trade and investment. Through the branch, the bank will provide corporate banking, trade finance, treasury and related financial services to clients operating across the United Kingdom, Europe and Africa.Speaking ahead of the launch, the Group Managing Director/Chief Executive Officer of Zenith Bank Plc, Dame Dr. Adaora Umeoji, OON, said: “The opening of our Manchester branch represents another important step in Zenith Bank’s growth as a leading African financial institution connecting businesses and markets across continents. Manchester is one of the United Kingdom’s most dynamic commercial centres, and our presence here will further strengthen financial connections between businesses in the UK and opportunities across Africa’s rapidly expanding markets.
”Founded in 1990 by its Founder and Chairman, Jim Ovia, CFR, Zenith Bank has grown into one of Africa’s most respected banking institutions, boasting a robust capital base and a remarkable history of year-on-year profitability. Built on a strong foundation of people, technology and service, the Bank has consistently delivered innovative financial solutions while maintaining a disciplined approach to growth and risk management. The impressive performance of the Bank has consistently earned it excellent ratings, recognition and endorsement from local and international agencies and institutions.Headquartered in Lagos, Nigeria, Zenith Bank operates over 500 branches and business offices across the 36 States of the Federation and the Federal Capital Territory (FCT). The Bank currently operates subsidiaries in several African countries including Ghana, Sierra Leone, Gambia, and Cote d’Ivoire, while maintaining a presence in major international financial centres including the United Kingdom, France, UAE and China.
In recent years, Zenith Bank has continued to expand its international network as part of its strategy to support global trade and investment flows involving Africa.Manchester, widely regarded as one of the United Kingdom’s most vibrant economic centres, hosts a diverse base of businesses across sectors such as manufacturing, engineering, logistics, technology and consumer goods. The city’s strong commercial ecosystem and international outlook align closely with Zenith Bank’s expertise in corporate banking, structured finance and trade finance.The Manchester branch will work closely with the Bank’s London operations and its broader international network to support clients seeking to expand across markets and unlock new opportunities in both the United Kingdom and Africa.
With the opening of the Manchester branch, Zenith Bank continues to advance its vision of building a truly global African banking institution that connects businesses, facilitates trade and investment, and creates stronger economic bridges between Africa and the world.
Business
New Petrol Import Permits May Reverse Nigeria’s Push for Domestic Refining and Increase Pressure on Foreign Reserve” — Energy Policy Group Tells President Tinubu
*“New Petrol Import Permits May Reverse Nigeria’s Push for Domestic Refining and Increase Pressure on Foreign Reserve” — Energy Policy Group Tells President Tinubu*
An energy policy group has advised President Bola Ahmed Tinubu to reconsider the wider economic consequences of newly issued permits allowing marketers to import petrol into the country, warning that the move could undermine Nigeria’s efforts to strengthen domestic refining and stabilise the economy.
In a statement released on Sunday in Abuja, the Energy Transparency and Market Justice Initiative (ETMJI) said the approvals granted by the Nigerian Midstream and Downstream Petroleum Regulatory Authority (NMDPRA) could produce unintended consequences if not carefully managed.
The group’s president, Dr. Salako Kareem, said Nigeria was at a delicate moment in its energy transition and that policy choices made now would determine whether the country finally escapes its decades-long dependence on imported refined petroleum products.
Kareem said while the regulator’s responsibility to guarantee adequate fuel supply is understood, expanding import permissions at this stage could weaken the policy direction required to encourage local production and long-term sector stability.
“Our respectful appeal to President Bola Ahmed Tinubu is that decisions concerning petrol importation must be carefully weighed against their long-term economic consequences,” Kareem said.
“Nigeria has spent decades trying to overcome the paradox of being a major crude oil producer while relying heavily on imported refined products. Any policy action that appears to reopen the floodgates of importation may slow down the progress that has been made toward strengthening domestic refining capacity.”
He warned that increasing petrol imports could place additional pressure on the country’s foreign exchange reserves, especially at a time when the government is pursuing difficult economic reforms aimed at stabilising the naira and improving fiscal discipline.
“For many years, the country has lost enormous volumes of foreign exchange importing petroleum products that could ideally be refined locally,” Kareem said.
“If import volumes begin to rise again, the demand for foreign currency will inevitably grow. This could place renewed strain on the naira and undermine the broader economic stabilisation programme that the government is currently pursuing.”
The group also warned that excessive reliance on imported petrol could create opportunities for product dumping and the entry of substandard fuel into the Nigerian market, a challenge that has troubled regulators and consumers in the past.
According to Kareem, Nigeria’s downstream sector has historically struggled with quality control issues whenever importation becomes widespread, because imported fuel often travels through multiple intermediaries before reaching domestic depots.
“One of the lessons from the past is that when imports dominate the supply chain, the market sometimes becomes vulnerable to the dumping of inferior petroleum products,” he said.
“This not only creates regulatory complications but also exposes Nigerian consumers to fuels that may damage vehicles, affect industrial machinery and ultimately impose hidden economic costs on the country.”
He added that encouraging domestic refining and strengthening local supply chains would provide better product traceability and improve overall market transparency.
Kareem stressed that the group’s intervention was not intended as criticism of the NMDPRA, noting that regulators must often make complex decisions to prevent supply disruptions in a volatile energy market.
However, he urged the federal government to ensure that short-term supply management does not weaken long-term national objectives in the petroleum sector.
“We recognise that the regulator has the responsibility to ensure that Nigerians do not experience fuel shortages, and that duty is extremely important,” he said.
“But at the same time, policy coherence is essential. The country must avoid sending signals that could discourage investment in local refining or create uncertainty about Nigeria’s commitment to energy self-sufficiency.”
Kareem said Nigeria now has a rare opportunity to restructure its downstream petroleum industry in a way that strengthens domestic production, protects foreign exchange reserves and builds long-term industrial capacity.
He urged the president to ensure that the country’s regulatory framework reflects that strategic vision.
“Our appeal is simply for policy alignment. If Nigeria truly wants to build a resilient energy economy, then every major decision in the downstream sector must reinforce the goal of reducing import dependence, strengthening domestic production and protecting the country’s economic stability,” Kareem noted.
The group added that careful policy coordination between regulators and the presidency would help ensure that Nigeria avoids repeating the costly fuel import cycles that have historically drained public resources and weakened the national economy.
-
society6 months agoReligion: Africa’s Oldest Weapon of Enslavement and the Forgotten Truth
-
news3 months agoWHO REALLY OWNS MONIEPOINT? The $290 Million Deal That Sold Nigeria’s Top Fintech to Foreign Interests
-
society6 months ago“You Are Never Without Help” – Pastor Gebhardt Berndt Inspires Hope Through Empower Church (Video)
-
society7 months agoWho is Chief Kestin Pondi? Niger Delta’s “People’s Chief” Winning Hearts With Hundreds of Millions in Generosity
You must be logged in to post a comment Login
You must log in to post a comment.