|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
By Sunny A. David, Awka
The Onitsha South Local Government Area of Anambra State has formally opposed the Anambra State House of Assembly’s involvement in a legal dispute over a parcel of land located at Silas Road, Fegge, Onitsha.
At a recent press briefing held at the LGA secretariat, the Council’s Secretary, Mr. Paul Onuachalla, described the Assembly’s intervention as unconstitutional, arguing that it infringes upon the powers of the judiciary.
He asserted that the matter is already before the High Court and, therefore, outside the legislature’s jurisdiction.
The land in question is allegedly owned by Onitsha-based businessman Chief Bar Sabest Uzoeto.
However, Onuachalla claimed the land rightfully belongs to the local government and is earmarked for the construction of a fire service station a public infrastructure project backed by the amended Anambra State Local Government Administrative Law of 2004.
Onuachalla cited an ongoing suit (Suit No. O/150/25) filed by the Onitsha South Mayor, Chief Emeka Joseph Orji, at the Onitsha High Court.
The suit questions whether the Assembly has any legal basis, under Sections 128 and 129 of the Nigerian Constitution, to deliberate or decide on land ownership matters.
He criticized the House Committee on Public Petitions for issuing a report on the issue, labeling it an overreach and a breach of the separation of powers.
Onuachalla also revealed that several court cases are pending on the matter and that law enforcement agencies are currently investigating.
Supporting the Council’s stance, Onitsha South’s Legal Adviser, Barrister Stanley Okafor, dismissed the Assembly’s findings as “a kangaroo exercise.”
He argued that the legislative body bypassed proper procedures and failed to consult the local government before intervening in a matter already in court.
In a brief comment, Chief Sabest Uzoeto maintained that he is the rightful owner of the disputed land, backed by official documents obtained from State land agencies.
He described the mayor’s claim as “laughable” and accused him of ignorance regarding the true ownership.
The dispute continues to unfold as both parties await the court’s verdict.
Comments are closed, but trackbacks and pingbacks are open.