Two senior lawyers have engaged in a war of words over the alleged $2.1 million Abuja land transaction involving Jordan Nyesom-Wike, son of the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory.
Jordan’s counsel, Dr. Ogwu Onoja, SAN, accused Ibrahim Waru, counsel to the claimants, of distorting facts of the case to tarnish his client’s image.
Onoja maintained that his client, who testified in court, denied any involvement in the land deal and denied collecting the money.
In a statement, he said, “This haze of lies and malicious fabrication appears to be an orchestrated media campaign intended to whip up sentiments, compromise the mind of the public and intimidate the judge.
“For the record, Jordan Wike, in his defence before the court, stated in unequivocal terms that he has never met Safwan Garba G.Y. or any of his agents at any time. He maintained this line of defence while giving evidence in court on September 28 and 30, 2026. One, therefore, wonders why a lawyer would grant interviews to misrepresent what transpired in court weeks after the proceedings.
“It is baffling that this interview by I.G. Waru was granted this week at the Federal High Court, Abuja, close to a month after the proceedings at the FCT High Court. It is clearly the source of defamatory comments, unfounded claims and unproven conclusions being made on social media by ignorant members of the public.”
In a swift reaction, Waru insisted his clients are in possession of Jordan’s signature on the acknowledgement receipt for the $2.1 million paid for the disputed land.
He said his media interview was to put the true facts of what transpired in court before the public, against distorted claims circulating on social media.
According to Waru, nothing said in the interview was contemptuous or overreaching.
He stated: “Despite the claim of Jordan Wike denying ever knowing or meeting Safwan Garba GY, the WhatsApp chats, whose number Jordan Wike admitted to be his, not only confirmed the familiarity between the duo but also established discussion and understanding regarding the giving and taking of the sum of $2.1 million, the subject in contention.”
He added that a civil case is distinct from a criminal case and both can be pursued concurrently.
