Recently, I received a distressing call from a concerned citizen who accused the Oyo State government of land grabbing, specifically targeting a property belonging to some retired individuals. This accusation, compounded by recent controversies over the conversion of open spaces and green areas into residential estates by the state government, immediately piqued my interest.
The caller detailed the history of the land, allocated to her in 2011. She mentioned that she had sold one of her plots and that the remaining plot was now the subject of a dispute. Agents from the government had forcibly removed the gateman from the gatehouse, locked the gate, and claimed the land was owned by someone else. Further complicating the situation, she had received a demand notice for ground rent on the same property, raising questions about the legitimacy and transparency of the revocation process.
Motivated by our advocacy’s past successes in eliciting government responses, I was eager to investigate further. Initially, I considered mobilizing media friends to expose the allegations but decided to first seek clarification from government officials. I contacted Mr. Akinfunmilayo, the Honourable Commissioner (HC) for Lands, who invited me to his office to discuss the matter. I insisted on bringing a representative of the landowner, given their current residence out of state. He agreed, and we scheduled a meeting for the following Thursday at 2 PM.
Upon arrival, I was reminded of my activism during the #saveourgreenspaces protest against converting Agodi Gardens into Baewood Estate. The commissioner welcomed us warmly and presented a Tribune publication from October 2023. It outlined the Oyo State Government’s (OYSG) statutory right to revoke undeveloped lands in KIGRA, a decision that had gone unchallenged publicly. Detailed records revealed that my client had encroached upon Plot 4 Block 4, which had been officially revoked as early as 2019.
During our conversation, my client admitted to selling a plot in 2021, identified as Plot 2 Block 4. However, they still claimed ownership of Plot 4 Block 4, albeit without the necessary Certificate of Occupancy (C-of-O), which they possessed for the previously sold plot. This discrepancy further complicated the issue.
To bolster their claim, my client’s architect presented approved drawings for the gatehouse and fence on the disputed property. However, this only added to the confusion. The Ministry of Physical Planning had erroneously approved these drawings, as the submitted site did not match the land documents provided.
Determined to resolve the matter, I requested access to the original land register from 2011. My investigation revealed that my client’s name only appeared on Plots 4 and 5, not on Plots 2 and 4 as they had initially claimed. This discovery led to the realization that the issue stemmed from administrative flaws predating the current administration, rather than deliberate land grabbing.
In conclusion, while the case underscores the need for improved land documentation processes, it is important to state that this is not an instance of government overreach as initially feared. My client intends to petition the OYSG for further clarifications. I appreciate Hon. Akinfunmilayo’s willingness to engage and his commitment to transparency. His efforts exemplify the administration’s dedication to upholding the rule of law as outlined in the Omituntun 2.0 roadmap for sustainable development. Through open communication and diligent investigation, we can ensure that justice and clarity prevail in land administration matters.
