Buzzapp Master 
Declaring the government’s actions void, the court ruled that the state lacked the legal power to divest or disturb the claimants’ land rights without due process and adequate compensation.
A lawyer, Augustine Aluzu, has raised alarm over a series of threatening messages he received after securing a landmark court judgment that removed the Bayelsa State Government and the Bayelsa State Waterboard Authority from a disputed land.
The court had awarded ₦20.5 million in general and exemplary damages, including the cost of the suit, in favour of Aluzu’s client — a ruling seen as a blow to the state authorities.
Following the judgment, Aluzu began receiving anonymous threats from an unidentified individual.
In one of the disturbing messages, the sender warned: “The stubborn fly follows the corpse to the grave.”
According to messages obtained by SaharaReporters, Aluzu responded to the threat in an attempt to clarify the sender’s identity and intent. “Good afternoon, I don’t understand your message. Who are you referring to in particular, and are you sure it is me you wanted to call or you called a wrong number?” he wrote.
However, the threats escalated. On Wednesday, July 17, 2025, the unidentified person appeared to confirm Aluzu’s identity and whereabouts, saying: “ARE YOU NOT BAR OFFICE AT RICHES PLAZA, BESIDE PEPPERONI, OPOLO?” — an apparent reference to the lawyer’s office location in Yenagoa, the Bayelsa State capital.
The motive behind the threats remains unclear, but sources close to the case believe they may be linked to the lawyer’s recent legal victory against the state government, especially following the abduction of the judge who presided over the case at the weekend.
Last week, a Bayelsa State High Court sitting in Yenagoa ruled in favour of the Fankien compound of the Okaka Epie community, ordering them to immediately take possession of a parcel of land currently occupied by the Bayelsa State Waterboard Authority.
In a judgment delivered on Friday by Honourable Justice E.G. Umokoro of High Court 7, the court declared the Fankien family as the rightful owners of the disputed land, which includes the area used by the Waterboard and parts designated by the government as High-Density Residential Area IIB.
The decision was issued in Suit No. BYHC/YHC/CV/248/2023 filed by Chief Reuben John and others against the Bayelsa State Government, the Attorney General (2nd defendant), and the State Waterboard Authority (3rd defendant).
Justice Umokoro held that the Bayelsa State Government’s occupation and use of the land was illegal, unconstitutional, and a violation of the claimants’ property rights, as there was no notice of acquisition, payment of compensation, or compliance with the Land Use Act.
The court further restrained the government and its agents from interfering with the Fankien compound’s rights to enjoy, lease, rent, or alienate the land.
Declaring the government’s actions void, the court ruled that the state lacked the legal power to divest or disturb the claimants’ land rights without due process and adequate compensation.
Meanwhile, the court awarded ₦20.5 million in general and exemplary damages to the claimants, including the cost of litigation, citing the continuous trespass by the Waterboard Authority as unlawful and adverse to the ownership rights of the Fankien family.
While delivering its judgment, the Bayelsa State High Court observed that although the claimants established their title to the land through traditional history, the defendants themselves acknowledged the Fankien compound as the traditional owners.
The defendants, through their witnesses, recognised the claimants as their landlords, confirming that both parties were in agreement on the identity of the land in dispute.
The primary contention was that the land had never been formally acquired by the defendants.
The claimants stated that the defendants entered the section of the land marked as Parcel B in 2006, cleared it, and requested permission to continue development while negotiations for compensation were ongoing.
As a sign of commitment, the defendants employed eight members of the claimants’ family as temporary staff under the 3rd defendant, a gesture that lasted until 2013 when the workers were disengaged.
Further discussions were held in 2016, during which the 1st defendant assured the claimants that compensation would be paid, acknowledging their constitutional rights to redress.
On the issue of whether the claim was statute-barred, the court held that the Limitation Law of Bayelsa State did not apply to Parcel A, as the claimants were already in possession of that section.
Regarding Parcel B, the court ruled that the limitation law was also inapplicable due to the defendants’ misrepresentation, which led the claimants to believe that compensation would be paid—particularly following the 2016 meeting.
While the court noted that negotiations alone did not halt the limitation period from running, it concluded that the defendants’ assurance of compensation rendered the statute of limitation defence untenable.
The court also pointed out that the claim of prior compensation—allegedly paid in 2000 for an acquisition said to have occurred in 1997—was only mentioned for the first time in the defendants’ joint statement of defence.
The court stated that any acquisition of private land must strictly follow the constitutionally outlined procedure. The claimants’ right to property, being constitutionally protected, cannot be waived, limited by time, or overridden by any subordinate legislation.
The court accepted and adopted the arguments presented by the claimants’ counsel regarding the lawful procedure for land acquisition.
It reiterated that despite the claimants successfully proving their root of title, and the defendants’ admission of deriving their title from the claimants, the burden remained on the defendants to prove how the title passed to them. The court found that they failed to do so.
In its final analysis, the court held that the defendants did not discharge the burden of proof.
In contrast, the defendants’ testimony relied on information from unverifiable and extraneous sources.
Reacting to the judgment, Mr. Aluzu, representing the claimants, said the ruling brought long-awaited relief to the Fankien compound. However, sadly, some family members who actively farmed on the land before the government encroached have passed away while awaiting compensation.
Aluzu called on the Bayelsa State Government to immediately delist the land designated as “IIB” from its cadastral records in full compliance with the court’s ruling.
On Sunday, SaharaReporters reported that armed men dressed in black had abducted a State High Court judge, Justice Omukoro, in Yenagoa, the Bayelsa State capital.
The assailants, who arrived in a white Hilux van, seized the judge around 7:00 p.m. on Saturday in front of a popular eatery in the Ekeki area along Chief Melford Okilo Expressway.
The motive behind the abduction remains unclear. However, it comes just days after similarly dressed men reportedly invaded the residence of Oyins Egrenbido, a broadcast journalist and business manager of Silverbird Communications.
A video seen by SaharaReporters shows the judge being forcefully dragged into the white Hilux by the gunmen.
Meanwhile, a government official who spoke to SaharaReporters on condition of anonymity said the state government would never abduct a judge over a ruling.
“Why would the government arrest or abduct a judge simply because of a judgment? That kind of thing is not possible,” the official said. “The media should be careful with such claims.”
The official added, “Some of these things don’t make any sense when you consider the reasons being suggested. People can say whatever they like these days — there are too many conspiracy theories.”
The Bayelsa State Police Command has yet to issue an official statement on the incident.
Follow the Sahara Reporters channel on WhatsApp: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VaFClvtH5JM6SSsP7M2Y
GIPHY App Key not set. Please check settings