Lawal Pedro, the state attorney general and commissioner for justice in Lagos State, has refuted claims that the state government willfully violate a subsisting court order by continuing to demolish homes in Oworonshoki, calling the claim “false and unfair.”
Contrary to reports that the latest demolition phase violated a restraining order obtained by residents, Pedro insisted that no order of court was ever served on any agency of the Lagos State Government prior to the completion of the most recent demolition.
“As of right now, I am aware of the court order they are referring to. The order was not served on any government agency prior to the demolition exercise they are suing. On Friday, October 24, the demolition’s official day, according to me, was October 24. Can a government office be served on Saturday, even if the order was obtained that day? No government agency was aware of any such order at the time, Pedro explained.
Read more about [Oworonshoki] Police deploying officers over the protest’s planned third Mainland Bridge to ensure residents’ safety
The Attorney General argued that the government could not be accused of contempt until a formal service of process was established and that government agencies could not act on “verbal notice” of a court decision.
He said, “My position is that no government agency was informed of any order that had been violated prior to the act being complained about.”
Pedro criticized what he called the misuse of court procedures against the interests of the public, claiming that many litigants have resorted to using the judiciary “as an instrument of oppression” despite the government’s leniency.
According to him, Oworonshoki’s demolition began almost a month ago but was abruptly stopped at the request of Governor Babajide Sanwo-Olu to give residents time to relocate.
Despite being unsure as to whether they were legally owners of the properties, he claimed the government had compensated the victims.
“Almost a month ago, the demolition began.” The people were given compensation to allow them to relocate after the governor’s directive prevented it from happening. Even though they were aware of the government’s demolition plan over a month ago, the case they are now referring to didn’t even have its filings until recently.
They allegedly turned around and filed a lawsuit with the government, but they only recently engaged a lawyer, Pedro alleged, using the same compensation funds, which they had already received from the government, to turn things around and file a lawsuit.
He confirmed that he had seen a copy of the interim injunction, which he claimed merely restrained further demolition, noting that it was an ex parte pre-emptive order obtained without the government being heard.
The order is to “stop continuation of demolition,” which demonstrates that demolition had taken place.
prior to demolition. It was ex parte obtained.
Before the order was made in violation of the principle of fair hearing, the government claimed, “We were not in court, and we were not part of the proceedings.”
Pedro added that his office, which is referred to as the first defendant in the case, had not been formally served at the time of the interview.
“I called my office to confirm that I was away in Akure over the weekend for an official assignment. No order has been given at this time. The Attorney General should receive an order first, if it exists. He continued, “That hasn’t been done.”
He added that before claiming damages, residents who claim illegal demolition must establish ownership and compliance with building regulations.
No one who denounces the government has even questioned whether any of the demolished properties had building permits. The law is clear: these structures are illegal and demolished if you construct them without permission.
We should stop using the media to legalize or deny the law because we always react with sentiment and emotion and then blame the government for upholding it.
He argued that to justify illegality.
The state’s recent instances of building collapse served as examples of why the government must take drastic measures to stop preventable tragedies, according to the Attorney General.
Pedro explained that the Oba’s family owns the majority of the land, which is a government initiative, while the remaining portion had been purchased.
He claimed that any structure constructed without government approval or allocation is still prohibited.
It would be improper to place the structures on the land that the Oba’s family had been given as excised land.
for government entry. However, the government has no right to interfere if they fall under its purview. Anyone who claims ownership must provide title documentation.
documents and building plans that were approved, he added.
He argued that the state government had acted within its rights and had not violated any valid court orders, calling the criticism of the demolition “unfair and sentimental.”
“No order has been deliberately flouted by the government.” The narrative that we disobeyed
the court is untrue. We are seeing a government-sponsored blackmail attempt.
enforcing the law,” Pedro declared.
Oworonshoki’s house demolition has sparked a lot of outcry and confusion.
residents, some of whom claim that the state violated a court order.
