By Newslife Community Reporter
ABEOKUTA — For the Busari family, the poultry farm at Fere Village, Obafemi Owode Local Government Area of Ogun State, is more than a piece of land.
It is a family investment valued at about N1bn, employing 35 workers and, according to the family, one of the major legacies left behind by their late patriarch, Alhaji Jelli Busari.
But the ownership and allocation of the property have now become the centre of a dispute involving the family, the Ogun State Government and a Chinese-linked company, with both sides presenting sharply different accounts of how the crisis began.
While the Busari family alleges that the government moved to dispossess them of the property and pave the way for a Chinese investor to take over the land where the poultry farm, is situsted,the the state government insists that the land was never a fully paid allocation to the family and that the provisional offer was cancelled after the required land cost was not paid within the stipulated period.
The dispute, which has also found its way to court, has raised questions about land acquisition, regularisation, government allocation, existing investments and the protection of businesses operating on disputed properties.
‘My father gave them access road’
Speaking on behalf of the family, Busari Azeez said the 15-acre property was acquired by their late father in 2020 in the name of their mother, Alhaja Adijat Busari Jumoke.
He said the family had documents showing government assessment of the property and had continued to make payments to the state.
According to him, the family was among the first occupants of the area and had invested heavily in the poultry business before the dispute emerged.
Azeez said the family even surrendered nearly four acres to provide an access road for the Chinese investors seeking access to adjoining plots.
“My father gave them the access road just to maintain peace. We were the first dwellers on this land, and we have been making our regular payments to the state government,” he said.
According to the family, the situation changed in 2023 and became more serious in 2025 when they were informed that the property had been reallocated.
Azeez alleged that the Surveyor-General of Ogun State, Oladele Ewulo, contacted the family and informed them that the land had been reallocated to a Chinese company on the directive of the state governor.
The family said it requested official documents backing the alleged reallocation but had yet to receive what it considered satisfactory documentation.
“We asked him if the government now engages in double allocation. He told us to vacate the premises for the Chinese company to take over,” Azeez recalled.
He said the development was particularly disturbing because the family had financial obligations tied to the farm, including bank loans and insurance commitments on the poultry stock.
Partial demolition deepens crisis
The family alleged that government officials later carried out a partial demolition on the property on January 26.
Azeez claimed that when the family contacted the Surveyor-General, they were told the demolition was a “preamble” to a full demolition of the facility.
The family subsequently approached the court, joining the Ogun State Government, the Attorney-General, the land vendor’s representative, Mr Jimoh, and an agent, Sobowale Nurudeen, as parties in the legal challenge.
For the Busari family, the concern is not simply about the land but the future of the poultry business and the 35 workers whose livelihoods depend on it.
“This is a N1bn investment with 35 workers, and our entire family relies on it for survival after our father’s passing,” Azeez said.
He appealed to the state and Federal Government to intervene, arguing that local investors should not be pushed aside because of the involvement of foreign investors.
Government: It was never a fully paid allocation
But the Ogun State Government has rejected the family’s account of the dispute.
The Special Adviser to the Governor on Information and Strategy, Kayode Akinmade, said the government’s records showed that the property in question was a 4.646-hectare parcel at Fere Village, Jibowu, along the Abeokuta-Sagamu Expressway, rather than a fully paid allocation that was arbitrarily revoked.
According to Akinmade, Adijat Jumoke Busari applied for allocation of the property on January 7, 2025, under reference number OW/SL/C.1302.
He said following site inspection and investigation, the Bureau responsible for land allocation issued a Provisional Letter of Offer to her on March 25, 2025.
The applicant received the assessment letter on April 2, 2025, with a condition that the assessed land cost be paid within 60 days, the government said.
Akinmade said the land was assessed at N334,493,200, but that the applicant failed to pay the principal cost within the stipulated period.
Although she subsequently paid N2,304,200 on June 17, 2025, the government said the money covered ancillary statutory charges, including execution, annual ground rent, government survey, preparation and registration fees.
It did not, according to the government, constitute payment for the land itself.
Akinmade said the Premium Fee, Capital Contribution Fee and Special Infrastructural Development Charge remained unpaid.
Consequently, he said, the provisional offer was cancelled in accordance with its terms and the applicant was formally notified.
Another account of the assessment
A top state government official who also spoke on the dispute gave another account of the land regularisation process, saying the property had been under government acquisition before being allocated to another company.
The official said Constantcy Farms Limited had acquired the land from the original owner before approaching the government to regularise its interest.
According to the official, the company was assessed to pay about N320m for the property but allegedly failed to complete the process within the stipulated period.
He said the condition attached to the allocation provided a three-year period for the required payment.
“The truth of the matter is that the land in question has been revoked. That is the truth,” the official said.
The difference between the N320m assessment cited by the official and the N334.493m figure contained in the Special Adviser’s statement was not immediately explained.
The official, however, maintained that the central issue was the status of the land and the failure to fulfil the conditions attached to the government’s regularisation process.
‘They bought government-acquired land’
The official further argued that the family’s purchase of the property from the original landowner did not automatically confer ownership because the land was already within an area covered by government acquisition.
“Already, the land they are sitting on is acquisition land. Which means, if government wants to really do its job, they don't own anything,” he said.
The government’s position, therefore, is that the matter was not a case of a fully compliant landowner being dispossessed and the property handed to a foreign investor.
Rather, it said the original offer was cancelled after the stipulated payment conditions were not fulfilled, after which the property became available for consideration by other investors.
Chinese connection
The presence of a Chinese-linked company has added another layer to the dispute.
The Busari family views the development as an attempt by foreign investors to take over an investment built by their late father.
The government, however, has dismissed suggestions that the family was targeted because of the involvement of Chinese investors.
The top official said the issue was fundamentally about the status of the land and compliance with government requirements, rather than the nationality of the new investor.
According to him, the subsequent allocation to another company followed the cancellation of the original offer.
Government offers ‘soft landing’
Despite the disagreement, the government said it was not seeking to destroy the poultry business.
Akinmade said that after the original applicant made representations following the cancellation, meetings were held and the government, on March 10, 2026, assured her that it would assist in relocating her to an alternative parcel on compassionate grounds.
The official who spoke on the dispute also said the government had proposed that the poultry operation be relocated.
“They wrote a letter to them, which we are even trying to assist them with, suggesting that these people should build another poultry farm for them elsewhere,” he said.
He explained that the proposal was intended to preserve the business rather than abruptly terminate the investment.
He added that the company could be considered for appropriate compensation for legitimate crops or improvements on the property, rather than ownership of the land itself.
Akinmade similarly said the government remained open to discussing how existing improvements on the original site could be addressed.
Dialogue or demolition?
The government also accused the affected party of failing to respond adequately to invitations for dialogue.
The official said several attempts were made to bring the parties together, including meetings involving lawyers and government agencies.
“The government wrote to them. We invited them, they didn't show up,” he said.
He said he personally intervened at one stage, although he noted that the intervention went beyond his official responsibility.
According to him, one of the company’s representatives later met with him alongside a lawyer and other persons, during which relocation was discussed.
He said the matter eventually became more complicated as different representatives became involved, prompting him to withdraw from direct negotiations and advise that the dispute be handled through formal government channels.
A government task force later considered documents relating to the property, he added.
A business caught between documents and competing claims
At the heart of the dispute is a fundamental disagreement over what the Busari family actually acquired and what rights the government subsequently granted or cancelled.
The family maintains that its late patriarch legally acquired the property, invested heavily in the poultry operation and obtained the necessary government documentation.
The government, on the other hand, says the relevant parcel was under government acquisition and that the family’s provisional allocation was conditional upon payment of the assessed land cost within a specified period.
While the family says the government’s action amounts to an attempt to dispossess it of a functioning N1bn enterprise, the government insists it cancelled an uncompleted land allocation and subsequently offered an alternative location to prevent the collapse of the business.
With the dispute now before the court, the competing claims are likely to turn on the documents surrounding the original acquisition, government acquisition status, subsequent applications, assessment payments, allocation conditions and the legal status of the improvements made on the land.
For now, the poultry farm remains the physical symbol of a wider dispute over who has the final say on land that a family says it bought and developed, and which the government says remained subject to its acquisition and allocation powers.
.jpg)
0 Comments