Reps Order Stoppage Of Disputed Imo Land Development, Armed Men Withdrawal

The House of Representatives Committee on Public Petitions has directed the stoppage of further development on a disputed parcel of land in Umundoche community, Ngor Okpala local government area of Imo state, pending the resolution of a petition over alleged illegal land grabbing, intimidation of villagers and other abuses.

The committee also directed that armed men allegedly operating in the community be disarmed, following allegations that villagers had been threatened with guns amid the dispute.

The panel took these decisions during investigative hearing into Petition No. 901 of 2026, filed by J.U. Okoye Chambers against Prince Charles Amadi, also known as Chavon, Chikadibia Anyanwu and Chidubem Nwosu.

The petition alleged illegal acquisition of more than 2,500 hectares of land belonging to four villages: Umuoyere, Umundioche, Okwuruma all in Obioma autonomous community and Umueme in Obike Autonomous community of Ngor Okpala, Imo state.

The petition also made allegations of shooting and attempted murder of villagers, invasion of the community by armed men, desecration of a corpse, abuse of police powers and breach of a memorandum of understanding.

The petition also named Eze, Lambert Unuoha, the traditional ruler of the Nma 1 of Obioma Autonomous Community in Ngor Okpala as a respondent.

Addressing the parties, the committee’s chairman, Hon. Kwamoti Bitrus La’ori
said no further activities should take place on the disputed land until the matter was resolved, either through the committee or other appropriate means.

The chairman who was represented by his deputy, Hon. Matthew Nwogu said; “there are orders that no more actions on this land until this matter is resolved.

“Either through this place, or through which other means you want to resolve it. That’s the first order. No more putting up caterpillars or bulldozers in that land,” he said.

He added that the committee had contacted the Department of State Services and the police, which, according to him, denied supplying firearms to the men allegedly operating in the community.

“All the boys that are armed in that village should be disarmed. Because we have made contact with the DSS. They said they didn’t give them the gun. The police said they didn’t,” he said.

The chairman said the directives were intended to prevent further escalation while the committee examined the allegations.

The hearing witnessed disagreements between the lawyers representing the parties over the status of a pending court case and whether the committee should proceed with the petition.

Counsel to Charles Farms Limited, which was identified during the proceedings as one of the parties involved in the land dispute, told the committee that his clients had legally acquired the land and paid the relevant parties.

He maintained that the allegations contained in the petition were false and disclosed that his clients had instituted legal proceedings against the petitioners.

According to him, he had written to the committee on September 28, 2026, explaining his clients’ position and attaching details of the court proceedings.

He, however, acknowledged that he had not brought the supporting court documents to the hearing.

The committee’s chairman insisted that oral explanations and a letter were insufficient, demanding certified documentary evidence to establish the status of the case.

The lawyer subsequently undertook to organise the documents he had received, certify the necessary papers and submit them to the committee.

The committee while intervening in the exchange, cautioned against allowing the existence of a court case to automatically terminate the legislative investigation.

It said the committee had a constitutional responsibility to consider petitions brought before it, adding that the scope of the court case would have to be examined before determining whether it covered all the issues raised in the petition.

“That a matter is in court does not immediately stop us from doing our duty. This is a constitutional committee. One of the very few committees written into the Nigerian constitution,” the lawmakers said.

Counsel to the petitioners, Julius Onyenaucheya, told the committee that efforts had been made to resolve the dispute before the matter was brought before the House.

He said the first petition was submitted on July 17, 2026, followed by another on August 14 and a subsequent petition later in August.

Onyenaucheya alleged that he had made several attempts to contact the respondents to resolve the dispute with the community but was unsuccessful.

He further alleged that the court action was initiated after the petitions had been submitted to the House, suggesting that it was intended to frustrate the committee’s proceedings.

The lawyer also accused the respondents of using security personnel and armed men to intimidate residents and prevent them from accessing their community.

He urged the committee to ensure that the alleged intimidation stopped while the petition was being considered. Onyenaucheya questioned the circumstances surrounding the acquisition of the land and demanded that the parties demonstrate compliance with customary land acquisition procedures.

He also raised concerns about the environmental implications of the proposed development, asking whether an environmental impact assessment had been conducted and made available to the community.

The lawyer argued that residents had a right to be consulted over activities that could affect their land and environment.

The allegations were disputed by the respondents’ representatives, who insisted that the land had been legally acquired. The claims remain subject to the committee’s investigation.

During the hearing, one of the respondents’ representatives challenged allegations that armed men had visited the community and threatened residents.

He said he had been in the area since Monday and disputed claims that he was present at the location where the alleged incident occurred.

He offered to provide his flight itinerary and hotel booking details to support his account.

The chairman subsequently requested that the parties provide any available video or photographic evidence to establish what happened.

The committee said it was interested in examining the evidence rather than relying solely on conflicting oral accounts.

The chairman reiterated that further development on the land must stop and that armed men allegedly involved in intimidating residents must be disarmed.

The committee adjourned the matter until November 2026 to allow the respondents to study the petition, prepare their formal responses and submit the necessary documentary evidence.