A lawyer alleges that two residential buildings were demolished after he refused to surrender disputed land. President Tinubu’s Aide-de-Camp denies wrongdoing and has initiated defamation proceedings. Fresh allegations of police intimidation raise wider questions about the intersection of military influence, traditional authority and access to justice.
The battle over a parcel of land in Ilemona, Kwara State, has escalated into a legal confrontation involving President Bola Tinubu’s Aide-de-Camp (ADC), the traditional ruler of the community and a lawyer who alleges that his property was demolished after he refused to sell it.
At the centre of the controversy is Nurudeen Alowonle Yusuf, the Elemona of Ilemona and serving presidential security aide, who has denied accusations of land grabbing and other misconduct.
Yusuf, through his solicitors, has described the allegations as false, malicious and defamatory. He has instituted both criminal and civil defamation proceedings against the lawyer, N.D. Abdulsalam.
But Abdulsalam insists that the dispute goes beyond a personal disagreement over land. He alleges that the traditional ruler’s position, military connections and proximity to the Presidency have created an atmosphere in which residents challenging land acquisitions risk intimidation and the destruction of their property.
His allegations remain unproven. Equally, the filing of defamation proceedings does not establish that his account of the demolition is false.
The dispute raises a more fundamental question for Nigeria’s institutions: can ordinary citizens obtain impartial protection when a property disagreement involves someone who combines military authority, access to the Presidency and traditional influence?
Two residential buildings and a disputed land transaction
According to Abdulsalam, the dispute originated from a parcel of land he purchased from Yusuf’s father and a family member whom he identifies as a former member of the Kwara State House of Assembly.
The lawyer says the transaction was supported by documentation confirming the purchase.
He subsequently developed the property, constructing two residential buildings comprising two-bedroom flats.
Abdulsalam claims that representatives of the traditional ruler later approached him with an offer to purchase the same property for another purpose.
He says he rejected the proposal because he had already acquired the land and had no intention of selling it.
“They called me from Elemona that the ADC wanted to buy my land. They wanted to use it for something. I said no, I was not selling,” Abdulsalam said.
According to his account, the situation subsequently escalated when he was informed that soldiers had arrived at the property alongside a bulldozer.
He alleges that the two buildings were demolished without an agreement transferring ownership of the land or a resolution of the disagreement.
The allegation introduces a critical evidential question that neither side’s public statements have settled: who authorised the demolition, under what legal authority and on whose instructions?
Abdulsalam says he possesses documents relating to the purchase, photographs of the demolished buildings and voice recordings of conversations with a brother of Yusuf.
These materials could help establish the sequence of events, but their authenticity, completeness and evidential value have not been independently established.
The lawyer also claims to have approached the president of the Offa Descendants Union for intervention.
According to him, community leaders subsequently appealed for negotiations and promised ₦25 million in compensation.
He alleges that the proposed payment has not materialised.
Atlantic Post has not independently verified the alleged compensation agreement or established whether the Union formally authorised the payment.
Yusuf responds with criminal and civil defamation cases
Yusuf’s response has shifted part of the dispute into the courtroom.
In a statement issued through his solicitors, the traditional ruler’s legal representatives accused Abdulsalam of publishing defamatory allegations against their client on October 27, 2026.
They maintained that the accusations lacked factual and evidential support and were intended to damage Yusuf’s reputation, integrity and standing in society.
The solicitors disclosed that Yusuf had initiated two separate legal proceedings.
The first is a direct criminal complaint for criminal defamation, identified as Suit No. UACIII/CRP/341/2026, reportedly brought under Section 391 of the Kwara State Penal Code.
The second is a civil defamation action identified as Suit No. KWS/566/2026.
According to the solicitors, court processes were taken to Abdulsalam for service.
They alleged that the lawyer refused to appear to receive the documents when contacted by telephone, prompting their client to seek a bench warrant under the Kwara State Administration of Criminal Justice Law.
The solicitors further claimed that the court subsequently authorised substituted service.
They rejected Abdulsalam’s suggestion that officials in Abuja had threatened his life, maintaining that the contacts were intended to facilitate service of the court documents.
Their position is that Abdulsalam should defend his allegations before a court rather than seek to establish them through media publicity.
The distinction between the proceedings is important.
The defamation cases concern allegations made against Yusuf. They are not, on the information presently available, a judicial determination of ownership of the disputed parcel or the circumstances surrounding the alleged demolition.
Similarly, Abdulsalam’s denial that he was summoned in the original land dispute does not, by itself, settle whether the separate defamation processes were properly served.
Atlantic Post has not independently examined the underlying court files, service affidavits or any warrant order. The solicitors’ account of the proceedings should therefore be distinguished from independently established court findings.
Fresh police-intimidation allegations widen the controversy
The dispute took another turn on November 3, when Abdulsalam alleged that he had faced threats and harassment following his public complaint against Yusuf.
In a statement dated November 3, 2026, the lawyer claimed that individuals had contacted him through suspicious telephone calls, allegedly attempting to lure him to undisclosed locations under the guise of arranging legal consultations.
He also described a telephone conversation at approximately 11:55 a.m. with an individual who reportedly identified himself as an officer of the Kwara State Police Command.
According to Abdulsalam, the caller informed him that a team of police officers had arrived in Abuja and was stationed at the Gwagwalada Police Division.
He alleged that approximately 10 officers had travelled from Kwara State to arrest him, with the FCT Commissioner of Police reportedly expected to assist.
The lawyer said he requested a formal police invitation rather than an arrangement involving the deployment of officers across state boundaries.
He maintained that he had not fled or gone into hiding.
“I will not be cowed by gunboat tactics or the unconstitutional misuse of executive power. Power is transient. I remain resolute in speaking truth to power and demanding justice,” Abdulsalam declared.
These are serious allegations, particularly because they concern the possible deployment of public security personnel in a controversy that includes a private land transaction.
But they have not been independently established.
In its November 4 report, PREMIUM TIMES said it could not independently verify Abdulsalam’s account of the alleged police deployment or the circumstances surrounding the telephone call.
The publication also reported that efforts to reach the Kwara State Police Command spokesperson, Adetoun Ejire-Adeyemi, were unsuccessful because her telephone number was unreachable.
Yusuf and his solicitors’ denial of the earlier intimidation allegations must also be considered alongside these newer claims, for which an independent response from the police is still needed. NEWS TIME+1
A dispute with a history: Offa and Ilemona tensions
The latest confrontation did not emerge in isolation.
Relations between Ilemona and neighbouring Offa have previously been strained by disagreements over land ownership and community boundaries.
On January 15, 2025, violence reportedly broke out in Ilemona over a disputed parcel involving a family in the community and individuals from Offa.
A subsequent report by LEADERSHIP documented concerns among residents and community figures about the escalating tensions.
An activist, Salahudeen Lukman, had publicly appealed to Yusuf to help preserve peaceful relations between the communities.
In an open letter published by The Guardian on January 28, 2025, Lukman urged the traditional ruler to exercise caution and protect the longstanding relationship between Ilemona and Offa.
He expressed concern that the land disagreements could undermine peaceful coexistence.
His appeal was followed by public responses from Ilemona stakeholders, who rejected accusations against the traditional ruler and pledged to work with security agencies to discourage land grabbing.
These earlier developments are significant because they demonstrate that community concerns over land disputes predate the latest confrontation with Abdulsalam.
They do not, however, establish that Yusuf personally participated in unlawful land acquisitions.
They show that the issue requires more than treating every complaint as an isolated personal disagreement.
What Nigerian land law says about the dispute
The Land Use Act 1978 provides an important framework for examining the allegations.
Section 1 vests land in each state in the state governor, who holds it in trust for the common benefit of Nigerians.
Section 2 distinguishes between the management of urban land by state governors and non-urban land by local governments.
Sections 21 and 22 establish consent and approval requirements for the transfer of customary and statutory rights of occupancy respectively.
Section 28 also specifies the circumstances under which rights of occupancy can be revoked in the overriding public interest.
These provisions do not automatically establish Abdulsalam’s ownership simply because he says he possesses transaction documents.
The legal validity of the transaction would depend on the ownership history, the authority of those who transferred the interest, the nature of the right of occupancy and any applicable statutory requirements.
But they also make clear why competing claims should be resolved through lawful procedures rather than intimidation or unilateral action.
Section 29 provides for compensation for certain improvements where a right of occupancy is formally revoked under specified circumstances.
Whether that provision applies to this particular dispute would depend on facts that have not been established.
The alleged ₦25 million agreement with the Offa Descendants Union would also need to be examined separately from any statutory entitlement to compensation.
Criminal defamation and the danger of competing legal battles
Yusuf’s decision to pursue criminal and civil defamation proceedings introduces another important dimension.
Under the publicly available Kwara State Penal Code register, Section 391 is identified as the provision defining defamation.
The actual complaint and applicable legal provisions must be examined before conclusions can be drawn about the precise offence alleged and the possible consequences.
There is also a relevant development within Kwara’s judiciary.
In December 2025, Chief Judge Abiodun Adebara disclosed that the state judiciary had introduced practice directions addressing potential misuse of direct criminal complaints.
The first of those directions took effect on June 2, 2025.
The Chief Judge identified the need to address procedural inconsistencies and prevent abuse in the administration of criminal justice.
This does not establish that Yusuf’s complaint is improper.
It does, however, make procedural transparency particularly important in a case involving a powerful public figure and a lawyer who says he is raising concerns about property rights.
A direct criminal complaint should be subjected to the same judicial standards regardless of the complainant’s military position, political access or traditional title. Kwara State Register of Laws+1
The unanswered questions that demand independent investigation
The solicitors also referred to a separate case involving an individual identified as Suara Agidingbadi, whom they said had made a confessional statement admitting unlawful possession of firearms and had been charged by the Kwara State Director of Public Prosecutions.
That case is separate from the disputed property transaction.
Any allegations or proceedings involving another individual cannot, without demonstrated evidential relevance, establish ownership of Abdulsalam’s property or determine whether the demolition was lawful.
Ultimately, several questions remain unanswered.
Who owned the disputed parcel before the transaction allegedly involving Abdulsalam?
What documents were executed, and were the necessary approvals obtained?
Who ordered the demolition of the two residential buildings?
Were soldiers involved, and under what authority were they allegedly deployed?
Was there a court order or any other lawful basis for the demolition?
Who made the alleged ₦25 million compensation promise, and was it formally documented?
Did police officers travel from Kwara to Abuja to investigate the lawyer, and what was the legal basis for any such deployment?
These questions should be answered through documentary evidence, court records, police records and independent investigation, rather than competing public statements.
The Kwara State Police Command should clarify whether its officers were deployed to Abuja and disclose the purpose and authority for any such operation.
The Nigerian Army should also establish whether military personnel were involved in the alleged demolition and, if so, the nature of their assignment.
The Presidency has an additional responsibility to ensure that the office of its Aide-de-Camp does not become a source of perceived immunity from public scrutiny.
No traditional title confers ownership of another person’s property. No military rank gives its holder authority to determine private land disputes outside the law. And no public official should have to choose between surrendering a legitimate property interest and facing intimidation.
Equally, allegations made against a public figure must be supported by credible evidence.
Yusuf is entitled to defend his reputation through lawful proceedings. Abdulsalam is entitled to seek remedies for any unlawful interference with his property and protection against any improper use of state institutions.
For residents of Ilemona, Offa and surrounding communities, the larger concern is whether the institutions responsible for protecting their land, property and personal safety will act impartially.
The real test in this controversy will not be which side wins the argument in the media.
It will be whether the evidence is examined, the law is applied equally and those responsible for any proven wrongdoing are held accountable, regardless of their connections.
Follow us on our broadcast channels today!
- WhatsApp: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VawZ8TbDDmFT1a1Syg46
- Telegram: https://t.me/atlanticpostchannel
- Facebook: https://www.messenger.com/channel/atlanticpostng
Join the debate; let’s know your opinion.