BREAKING: “The DPO Said Since It’s Order From First Lady, There’s Nothing He Can Do”, Lawyer Drags Remi Tinubu

Please Kindly Pay Attention: If you’re reading on PHOENIX, please click the “Read Original” button at the top right to view the full article.

Ridwan Sodiq, lawyer to the 80-year-old elder statesman Suleiman Abdullahi, has reacted to the demolition of a property located at No. 25, Plot 1250B on Yakubu Gowon Crescent in Abuja’s Asokoro District, insisting that the action was carried out without proper legal justification despite the existence of a certificate of occupancy issued in 2005.

Speaking during an interview on News Central TV, on Monday, 8 June, 2026, Sodiq alleged that the demolition process was accompanied by conflicting directives and verbal instructions that raised serious concerns about due process and accountability in the handling of the matter.

According to him, the situation escalated when officials returned to the property and interacted with tenants living within the premises. He said the development took a different turn after claims were made suggesting that the exercise was linked to a directive from a top government office.

Sodiq further explained that the involvement of security personnel deepened the confusion surrounding the demolition. He said decisions appeared to have been made based on verbal claims rather than documented orders or legal instruments authorising such action.

During the interview, he said: “On Thursday, they came back and met some of the tenants in the property and that one made some wild allegations that it was order from the first Lady. From there, the DPO said since it was order from there, there is nothing he can do. All these were done verbally.”

The lawyer maintained that the reliance on unverified verbal instructions undermines established legal procedures and raises questions about the legitimacy of the operation. He stressed that no formal notice consistent with due process was presented before the demolition was carried out.

Sodiq insisted that the property had valid ownership documentation dating back to 2005 and called for a transparent investigation into the circumstances surrounding the demolition.