The Court of Appeal sitting in Ibadan has struck out an appeal filed by the Ogun State Government challenging the ruling over the controversial demolition of Datkem Plaza, a five-story complex in Ijebu-Ode owned by Yeye Olufunke Daniel, the wife of former Ogun State Governor, Otunba Gbenga Daniel.
The appeal, presided over by Hon. Justice Y.B. Nimpar, was dismissed for lack of competence, dealing a significant blow to the administration of Governor Dapo Abiodun, which has faced intense scrutiny and criticism over the circumstances surrounding the destruction of the multi-billion-naira property.
The demolition of Datkem Plaza, valued at approximately N5 billion, was carried out in the dead of the night on a weekend, raising suspicions of politically motivated sabotage.
Reports indicate that the building, which was already completed and awaiting commissioning just two weeks before it was brought down, was targeted by agents allegedly acting on the orders of the Ogun State Government.
Unconfirmed sources claim that the initial plan was to use dynamite to create the illusion that the structure had collapsed due to structural defects.
However, upon realizing that the explosion could damage surrounding buildings and expose the act as deliberate sabotage, the perpetrators allegedly opted for jackhammers and bulldozers, executing the demolition under the cover of darkness.
Eyewitnesses who spoke to journalists described the scene as “a well-coordinated operation” designed to erase the landmark building, which many had believed would become the tallest structure in Ijebuland.
By the time daylight broke, Datkem Plaza was nothing but rubble—its dream of becoming a thriving commercial hub obliterated overnight.
Following the demolition, the Ogun State Government defended its actions, citing regulatory infractions as the basis for bringing down the structure. Officials claimed that Datkem Plaza violated planning approvals, a claim the owners vehemently denied, providing evidence of compliance with all necessary regulations.
In response, Yeye Olufunke Daniel dragged the state government to court, arguing that the destruction of her property was illegal, vindictive, and politically motivated. The lower court ruled in her favor, prompting the Ogun State Government to file an appeal, which has now been struck out for lack of competence by the Court of Appeal in Ibadan.
The demolition of Datkem Plaza ignited a political firestorm, with many interpreting it as a direct attack on the Daniel family, given the longstanding political rivalry between Governor Abiodun and former Governor Gbenga Daniel, who is now a senator representing Ogun East Senatorial District.
Observers see the Court of Appeal’s decision as a legal and moral victory for the Daniel family, reinforcing the argument that the demolition was not based on law, but rather on political vendetta.
With the appeal dismissed, legal analysts believe the Ogun State Government could face further legal consequences, including potential financial compensation for the destruction of the multi-billion-naira property. Meanwhile, the Daniels’ supporters are celebrating the verdict as a step toward justice in what they call “one of the most brazen acts of executive impunity in Ogun State’s history.”
While the Ogun State Government has yet to respond to the Court of Appeal’s decision, legal experts suggest that it may have limited options left, as the ruling effectively upholds the lower court’s judgment.
For now, the spotlight remains on Governor Abiodun’s administration, with critics demanding accountability for the demolition of a structure that could have transformed the economic landscape of Ijebu-Ode
Oceangate Engineering Oil & Gas Limited has announced plans to appeal a recent ruling of the Federal High Court ordering the forfeiture of certain assets.
The company’s Secretary, Nnenna Onyeaso, disclosed this in a statement on Thursday, maintaining that neither the firm nor its leadership was found guilty of any wrongdoing.
Onyeaso said the company views the ruling as a civil asset forfeiture order based on suspicion rather than proof, she emphasise that the judgment did not establish any criminal liability against the organisation.
She added that the firm has instructed its legal team to file an appeal, expressing confidence in the judicial process and optimism that a comprehensive review of the case will yield a favourable outcome.
“To be clear, this ruling is a civil asset forfeiture order with no finding of wrongdoing against Oceangate or its leadership.
“The court’s decision rested on a legal standard of suspicion, not proof, and it is one we intend to pursue fully through the appeals process,” she said in a statement.
The firm secretary also said that Oceangate has reiterated its belief in the rule of law, noting that the appellate system exists to address such outcomes.
She added that the company remained confident that the facts of the case will ultimately affirm its integrity and business practices.
Onyeaso said that the firm also emphasised that its operations remained unaffected, stating that it continues to provide employment for many Nigerians while contributing to the country’s energy sector and broader economy.
“We have always believed in the ability of the judicial process, and that belief has not wavered,” she added.
She noted that Oceangate further expressed appreciation to its employees, partners, and clients for their continued support amid the development, assuring stakeholders of its commitment to transparency and accountability.
The Secretary said that the company reaffirmed its confidence in Nigeria as a viable destination for investment, describing the country as a land of equity, growth, and opportunity.
“We remain committed to the continued growth of our business and the communities we serve as we are optimistic that justice will prevail at the end of the legal process.
The Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) has asked the Federal High Court in Lagos to issue injunctive orders restraining the Federal Ministry of Health and Social Welfare and the Office of the Secretary to the Government of the Federation (SGF) from further extending the moratorium on the prohibition of the production, distribution, and sale of alcohol in sachet format.
The Rights Group also asked for order restraining them from interfering with the statutory powers of the National Agency for Food and Drug Administration and Control (NAFDAC) to enforce the ban.
Specifically, SERAP is seeking an order of injunction restraining the defendants, their servants, agents, privies, and all persons or authorities acting through them from extending any moratorium on the sachet alcohol ban.
The organisation is also asking the court for a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from directing, preventing, blocking, or stopping NAFDAC from enforcing the prohibition, in line with its statutory functions under Sections 5 and 30(c) of the NAFDAC Act, the Spirits Drink Regulation, and the Memorandum of Resolution executed on 19 December 2018.
In the suit marked FHC/L/CS/2568/25, SERAP is asking the court to compel the Federal Ministry of Health and Social Welfare, through its supervisory authority, to immediately direct NAFDAC to fully enforce the existing nationwide ban on the production, distribution, and sale of alcohol in sachet format.
The defendants in the case are the Minister of Health and Social Welfare and the Attorney-General of the Federation.
The group argues that the continued delay by the relevant federal authorities in enforcing the ban amounts to a failure to implement long-standing public health regulations designed to curb alcohol abuse, protect public safety, and safeguard citizens’ well-being.
The suit was filed on SERAP’s behalf by Mofesomo Tayo-Oyetibo, SAN, alongside a team of lawyers from Tayo Oyetibo LP.
In an originating summons dated 15 December 2025, SERAP contends that the ongoing circulation of sachet alcohol violates the National Health Act, 2014, the NAFDAC Act, the Spirits Drink Regulation, 2021, and the Memorandum of Resolution of 19 December 2018, which collectively mandate a nationwide ban on sachet alcohol.
SERAP is asking the court to determine whether the Minister of Health can lawfully refuse or fail to enforce the prohibition, and whether any federal authority has the power to interfere with or delay NAFDAC’s statutory duty to enforce the ban.
The organisation also wants the court to decide whether, given the acknowledged dangers of alcohol abuse, judicial intervention is required in the interest of public health, public safety, and public order.
According to SERAP, sachet alcohol, often cheap, highly potent, and widely accessible, has been linked to rising cases of alcohol abuse, particularly among young people and low-income communities. It argues that the 2018 Memorandum of Resolution and subsequent regulations were adopted precisely to address these risks.
Among the reliefs sought are declarations that the sachet alcohol ban is a valid regulation under the NAFDAC Act; that the Minister of Health has no legal authority to grant or extend any moratorium on its enforcement; and that it is unlawful for any federal authority to interfere with NAFDAC’s enforcement responsibilities.
SERAP is also asking the court to affirm that the defendants have a duty to ensure the full implementation of the ban nationwide.
The legal action follows recent unverified social media news suggesting there is an attempt to further postpone the long overdue enforcement of the ban championed by a few operstors bent on continued violation of the regulation, despite earlier regulatory directive and broad industry commitments. The issue has gained renewed attention after the Senate in full plenary session passed a unanimous resolution setting a December 2025 deadline for full enforcement of the ban, citing public health concerns.
SERAP insists that continued delays undermine Nigeria’s health laws and expose citizens to preventable harm, urging the relevant authorities to prioritise public interest over selfish profit objectives of a few non-compliant businessmen.
The court is expected to fix a hearing date once the defendants enter their appearance.
Trending News5 years ago
Others4 years ago
Humanity4 years ago
Others7 years ago
Business2 years ago
Business2 years ago