Counsel to businessman Safwan Garba GY has alleged that Jordan Wike, son of the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Nyesom Wike, acknowledged receiving $2.1 million as part payment for a proposed real estate joint venture in Abuja, as the dispute over the transaction continues before the FCT High Court.
The lawyer, Ibrahim Waru, made the allegation while addressing journalists after proceedings in the case, which was adjourned to December 1, 2 and 14, 2026, for continuation of trial.
The suit, marked CV/008/2026, was instituted by Garba and his company, GY Global Oil and Gas Nigeria Limited, against Jordan over a disputed property-development agreement involving proposed residential developments in Guzape and Katampe districts of Abuja.
Waru said some social media reports had inaccurately presented the nature of the transaction, particularly claims that the dispute concerned 60 hectares of land in the two locations.
According to him, the agreement was a joint venture under which the claimant was to contribute $4.2 million towards the construction of residential properties for sale, while Jordan was expected to provide 1.5 hectares of land in Guzape and another 1.7 hectares in Katampe.
The lawyer explained that the parties had agreed to share the proceeds from the proposed development, with the claimant entitled to 60 per cent and Jordan to receive the remaining 40 per cent.
Waru alleged that the claimant paid $2.1 million, representing half of his agreed financial contribution, and maintained that Jordan acknowledged receiving the money.
“After payment of half of the contribution, because the claimant did give Jordan the sum of $2.1 million, which he acknowledged received, as a part payment of their own contribution to the business,” the lawyer said.
He alleged that the dispute emerged after the money had been paid, claiming that the understanding between the parties subsequently changed.
“After collecting this money, the story became entirely different. That was how the problem started,” Waru added.
However, Jordan has previously denied receiving the disputed $2.1 million and maintained that his signature on documents presented in court in connection with the transaction was forged. The competing claims remain before the court, which has yet to determine whether the payment was made or whether the documents relied upon by the claimants are authentic.
Waru also disputed Jordan’s account of the date of the alleged transaction, insisting that September 26, 2025, was the date discussions about the proposed business began and not the date the money was handed over.
According to the lawyer, the actual payment took place on October 17, 2025, at a residence in Gwarinpa, Abuja, in the presence of two witnesses.
He said the witnesses, whom he described as young men who assisted in carrying the cash and placing it inside a vehicle, had already testified before the court.
The lawyer further disclosed that WhatsApp conversations and telephone calls between the parties formed part of the evidence presented by the claimants. He said the communications had been tendered in court as an exhibit in support of their account of the transaction.
Waru also questioned a boarding pass Jordan reportedly presented to support his claim that he was outside Nigeria on the date initially associated with the alleged payment.
According to him, the document did not specify the year of travel, while Jordan allegedly failed to clarify when it was issued during questioning.
The disputed date is central to the case because the parties have presented conflicting accounts of when the transaction took place. Jordan has denied receiving the money and challenged the authenticity of the documents allegedly linking him to the agreement.
During earlier proceedings, the court directed Jordan to produce his American passport after he said he was outside Nigeria on the date the claimants initially identified as that of the alleged payment. The passport was subsequently presented in court.
The presentation of the passport, however, does not by itself resolve the wider dispute over whether the money was paid, whether Jordan acknowledged receiving it or whether the proposed joint venture was entered into on the terms described by the claimants.
In a separate development, Waru disclosed that the claimants had written to the Chief Judge of the FCT High Court, requesting that the case be reassigned to another judge.
The lawyer said the application followed concerns communicated to his legal team regarding alleged close family and community ties between Jordan and the presiding judge, Justice Sylvanus Oriji.
He said the request was intended to have the matter transferred to another court for trial, adding that the claimants had yet to receive a response from the relevant office.
The application is a request for reassignment and does not, in itself, establish that the presiding judge is biased. No determination on the request was disclosed by the lawyer.
The case has also generated a separate development involving a petition to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) over the allegations arising from the disputed transaction.
Waru said the claimants had submitted a petition to the commission, accompanied by supporting documents and other evidence requested from them.
He alleged that the claimants had complied with the requirements communicated to them but had yet to receive a substantive response regarding the petition.
“I was calling the IPO, but in fact I stopped calling because there has not been a response,” the lawyer said, referring to the investigating police officer.
The lawyer’s comments raise questions about the status of the petition, although no independent confirmation of its current status or the commission’s position was provided in the account of the proceedings.
The civil case before the FCT High Court and the petition to the EFCC are separate processes. The allegations against Jordan remain unproven, and no court finding establishing criminal wrongdoing by him in connection with the disputed payment has been reported.
The dispute centres on an alleged agreement to develop residential properties on land said to be provided by Jordan in Guzape and Katampe, both within Abuja.
Under the arrangement described by the claimants, Garba and his company were to provide $4.2 million to finance the construction of houses for sale, while Jordan was to contribute the land required for the project. The parties were allegedly to share the proceeds in the ratio of 60 per cent to the claimant and 40 per cent to Jordan.
The claimants allege that they fulfilled part of their financial obligation by paying $2.1 million but that the proposed development did not proceed as agreed. They are seeking the recovery of the disputed sum, alongside damages and other reliefs.
Jordan, on the other hand, has denied receiving the money and challenged the authenticity of the documents presented by the claimants, particularly the disputed signature said to link him to the transaction.
The court is expected to continue hearing evidence on the competing accounts, including the alleged cash payment, the date on which it was made, the authenticity of the disputed documents and the terms of the proposed joint venture.
The case has attracted public attention because of Jordan’s relationship with the FCT minister, but the legal questions before the court concern the parties’ competing claims over the proposed property-development agreement and the alleged payment.
The FCT High Court has adjourned the matter to December 1, 2 and 14, 2026, for continuation of trial.