Human rights lawyer Chidi Anselm Odinkalu has questioned the continued involvement of Justice Sylvanus Oriji in the $2.1 million property dispute involving Jordan Ezenwo Nyesom-Wike, son of FCT Minister Nyesom Wike.
Odinkalu, a former Chairman of the National Human Rights Commission, said the judge’s reported familiarity with the Wike family could raise concerns about the appearance of impartiality. He called on Justice Oriji to recuse himself, citing the need to preserve public confidence in the proceedings.
According to Sahara Reporters, the case, marked CV/008/2026, was brought by Safwan Garba GY and GY Global Oil and Gas Nigeria Limited against Jordan over a disputed property transaction in Abuja.
At the latest hearing, attention turned to Jordan’s whereabouts on September 26, 2025, when the claimants allege that the disputed transaction took place. Jordan told the court that he was outside Nigeria and had travelled with his American passport. The claimants’ lawyer subsequently applied for an order compelling him to produce the passport, which Justice Oriji granted.
The court also ordered Jordan to write his name and signature five times each on a plain sheet of paper. The defence did not oppose the application, and the order was granted.
The underlying dispute concerns a proposed property development involving land in Guzape New Extension and Katampe New Extension. The claimants allege that Jordan was expected to provide the land for the project and that $2.1 million was subsequently paid in connection with the arrangement.
Jordan has denied receiving the money and rejected the claimants’ account of the transaction. His defence has also challenged the authenticity of documents presented by the claimants, including the signature and passport details contained in an alleged acknowledgment of payment.
In seeking the judge’s recusal, Odinkalu cited a previous Supreme Court case in which Justice Anthony Aniagolu withdrew from an election dispute because of his familiarity with the parties involved. He argued that similar circumstances should be considered where a judge’s relationship or familiarity with parties could raise questions about the perception of neutrality.
The competing claims remain before the FCT High Court and have not been finally determined. Proceedings in the case have been adjourned for continuation.
