Lawyers representing claimants in a $2.1 million land dispute involving Jordan Ezenwo Nyesom-Wike, son of Federal Capital Territory (FCT) Minister Nyesom Wike, have asked the Chief Judge of the FCT High Court to transfer the case to another court over concerns about the appearance of impartiality arising from the presiding judge’s alleged family and community ties to the defendant.
The claimants’ lawyers, I.G. Waru & Co., made the request in a letter dated October 7, 2026, and received at the Chief Judge’s chambers on October 8, seeking the reassignment of suit number CV/008/26 from Court 2 of the FCT High Court, presided over by Justice Sylvanus Chinedu Oriji.
The suit was filed by Safwan Garba GY and GY Global Oil and Gas Nigeria Limited against Jordan Wike over allegations surrounding a proposed land acquisition and joint venture arrangement involving properties in Abuja.
In the letter signed by Ibrahim G. Waru, the lawyers said their clients’ concerns were partly influenced by social media publications questioning the judge’s alleged relationship with the Wike family.
They also cited a September 30 report by Sahara reporters quoting human rights lawyer and former Chairman of the National Human Rights Commission, Professor Chidi Anselm Odinkalu, who had urged Justice Oriji to recuse himself from the case over the alleged connections.
The lawyers stressed that their application was not intended to question the judge’s integrity, professional competence or personal disposition towards the parties.
“Our clients do not equally allege actual bias against His Lordship, the presiding Judge, rather, the request is founded on the need to avoid circumstances capable of creating a reasonable perception or apprehension that the matter may not be determined with the required appearance of complete impartiality,” the letter stated.
They argued that the judge’s alleged relationship with the defendant and their reported common community background could create concerns about the appearance of impartiality, regardless of whether the judge was actually biased.
The lawyers maintained that the transfer was necessary in the interest of justice and to preserve public confidence in the judicial process.
“It is a fundamental principle of the administration of justice that justice must not only be done but manifestly and undoubtedly seen to have been done,” they stated.
They urged the Chief Judge to exercise his administrative powers to reassign the case to another court within the FCT High Court.
According to the lawyers, transferring the matter would not constitute an adverse finding against Justice Oriji but would eliminate any reasonable apprehension of bias and reassure the parties about the fairness of the proceedings.
The request comes amid public scrutiny of the assignment of the case to Justice Oriji following Odinkalu’s comments about the judge’s alleged relationship with the Wike family.
In his earlier remarks, Odinkalu questioned the decision to assign the case to Justice Oriji, alleging that the judge hails from Obio/Akpor Local Government Area of Rivers State and is reputedly related to the Wike family.
He further alleged that the judge was well known to the family and that they came from the same neighbourhood.
Odinkalu argued that the circumstances could undermine public confidence in the proceedings and urged the judge to step aside.
However, the allegations concerning the judge’s relationship with the Wike family do not, in themselves, establish that he has acted with actual bias. The request for reassignment remains an application by the claimants’ lawyers, and no decision by the Chief Judge was contained in the letter provided.
The substantive dispute concerns allegations that Jordan Wike collected $2.1 million in connection with a proposed land acquisition involving 60 hectares of land in Abuja.
According to the claimants, they met Jordan in London and subsequently approached him in Abuja for assistance in facilitating the acquisition of land in the Federal Capital Territory.
They allege that Jordan agreed to facilitate the acquisition of 30 hectares at Katampe and another 30 hectares at Guzape.
The claimants further allege that Jordan demanded $2.1 million, comprising $2 million purportedly intended for his father, the FCT Minister, and $100,000 for himself.
According to their account, the money was delivered in cash on September 26, 2025, in the presence of Adamu Sani, Aliyu Sarki and Sai Wani, while Jordan was accompanied by Onor Sandy.
They allege that Jordan subsequently failed to deliver the land or refund the money.
The dispute is also linked to a joint venture agreement dated October 17, 2025, involving the claimants, Jordan and two companies, Apostle Associate Limited and Creekstone General Contractor Ltd.
According to the claimants’ statement of claim, the proposed project involved constructing 24 fully detached six-bedroom duplexes on land in Guzape New Extension and Katampe New Extension.
Under the alleged arrangement, the claimants were expected to contribute $4.2 million, or its naira equivalent of ₦6.3 billion, while Jordan was expected to provide the land.
The claimants said they later discovered that the plots did not belong to Jordan and that another company was preparing to develop them.
They said they demanded a refund on October 31, 2025, after allegedly discovering the problems surrounding the proposed transaction.
Jordan has denied the allegations in his court filings.
He said he did not know the claimants and had never met them in London, Nigeria or elsewhere.
He also denied receiving the alleged $2.1 million and disputed the acknowledgment of receipt presented by the claimants, describing the signature on the document as forged.
Jordan further challenged the claimants’ account of when and where the alleged payment took place.
He said a letter dated November 24, 2025, addressed to his father and the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, alleged that the payment was made on September 26, 2025, when he was travelling from Abuja to London on a British Airways flight.
He also disputed the passport number stated in the alleged acknowledgment of receipt, arguing that the passport bearing that number had expired in 2022.
Jordan characterised the allegations as an attempt to blackmail his father and extort money.
The proceedings have also featured a dispute over documents and Jordan’s whereabouts on the date the claimants said the money was delivered.
During an earlier hearing, Justice Oriji ordered Jordan to produce his American passport after the claimants’ counsel, Hamza Dantani, applied for the document during cross-examination.
When asked where he was on September 26, 2025, Jordan told the court that he was outside Nigeria.
Asked which passport he had used to travel, he said he travelled with his American passport and indicated that he could produce it if required.
Dantani subsequently applied for an order compelling Jordan to produce the passport, and the judge granted the application.
The court also granted an application directing Jordan to write his full name and signature five times each on a plain sheet of paper. The defence did not oppose the application.
The matter was subsequently adjourned for the continuation of proceedings.
The claimants have also alleged that the FCT Minister became involved when they sought to recover the money allegedly paid in connection with the proposed land transaction.
According to their statement of claim, the first claimant approached Wike on December 24, 2025, seeking his assistance in recovering the funds.
They alleged that the minister abused the claimant, accused him of lying and stealing, and directed an aide to take him to the FCT Commissioner of Police.
The claimants further alleged that the claimant was treated as a suspect, made an extra-judicial statement and was subsequently released on bail.
These allegations concerning the minister have not been finally determined by the court.
A police investigation report attached to Jordan’s court filings stated that the FCT Police Command investigated the matter.
According to the report, the first claimant was given an opportunity to provide evidence supporting the alleged payment but had not done so.
The report recommended that the claimant be arraigned over alleged defamation of character, giving false information to mislead a public servant and attempted extortion.
The recommendation represents the position contained in the police report and does not, by itself, establish that the claimant committed the alleged offences.
The dispute therefore involves competing accounts of the alleged $2.1 million transaction, the proposed acquisition of the Abuja land, the disputed acknowledgment of receipt and the circumstances surrounding the claimants’ attempts to recover the money.
The latest application introduces an additional question concerning whether the case should remain before Justice Oriji or be reassigned to another judge.
While the claimants’ lawyers maintain that their request is intended to protect public confidence in the judicial process rather than accuse the presiding judge of actual bias, the application places the appearance of impartiality at the centre of the ongoing proceedings.
The Chief Judge’s decision on the transfer request was not contained in the letter provided, while the substantive allegations in the land dispute remain before the court and have not been finally determined.