By Danjuma Lafia
Land disputes in Abuja are not uncommon. However, when they involve high-profile families, corporate entities, and federal agencies like the EFCC, they tend to mutate into national spectacles. Such is the case of the heated legal and reputational battle involving Rebecca Omokamo Godwin-Isaac, her husband Isaac Ishaku Yusuf, and their real estate firm, Homadil Realty Limited.

The dispute over Plot 4022A09 Guzape, and Plots 1861 and 1862 B07 Katampe Main, has revealed not just a property conflict, but a coordinated public assault and systemic imbalance fueled by media, bureaucracy, and selective law enforcement.What began as a civil ownership dispute has escalated into a media campaign, apparently designed to destroy reputations, freeze business activities, and stifle legal defense.

The Yesufu family—led by 79-year-old Hajia Colleen Mero Yesufu—has waged a public war against Rebecca, spreading damaging publications, accusations, and letters to high-profile government offices, attempting to criminalize what remains a civil matter.This piece aims to correct the record, dismantle misinformation, and restore balance by presenting the full timeline, facts, and legal context often omitted in the public attacks against Homadil Realty.

PART ONE: THE FACTS OF THE TRANSACTION – GUZAPE AND KATAMPE PLOTSPlot 4022A09 Guzape:This parcel of land was originally allocated by the FCT to Amina Usman Musa, who is legally recorded as the first allottee. Amina, in line with the law, transferred her interest to Arch. Richard John Idakwagi of Rychado Homes, who in turn sold the land to Rebecca Omokamo Godwin-Isaac, CEO of Homadil Realty Ltd.

All transfers were supported by verifiable documents: Power of Attorney, AGIS land documents, and receipts for fees and taxes paid. The transaction was transparent, legal, and verified through Abuja Geographic Information Systems (AGIS).Despite this, EFCC launched an investigation and commenced a public campaign, arresting staff, freezing bank accounts, and portraying the company as part of a criminal cartel—without concluding their investigations.

Notably, both ICPC and the Nigerian Police Force, in their respective investigations, identified no wrongdoing and urged that the matter be handled within the purview of civil litigation, not criminal prosecution.Plots 1861 and 1862 B07 Katampe Main:Plot 1861 was originally allocated to May Estate Agency Enterprises, and Plot 1862 to Fafam Nigeria Limited.

Homadil Realty’s acquisition of these plots was done through formal legal channels, with corresponding documentation, taxes, and approvals. Yet, Hajia Colleen Yesufu, without any proven transactional link or registered transfer from either May Estate or Fafam Nig Ltd, has claimed these lands as hers.Her claims are unsupported by any AGIS verification, lacking valid Certificate of Occupancy, Power of Attorney, or payment records. Still, she maintains that she is the true owner—yet refuses to submit her title documents to judicial scrutiny

PART TWO: THE YESUFU PUBLICATIONS – FALSEHOODS AND CHARACTER

ASSASSINATIONIn a campaign that began in late 2023 and intensified in early 2025, the Yesufu family began publishing public letters, social media statements, and formal petitions to the Presidency, EFCC, Ministry of Justice, and the Senate, accusing Rebecca and her husband of being “fraudsters,” “land grabbers,” and “real estate manipulators.”Some of the damaging public statements included:

A viral open letter titled “Expose the Guzape Fraud: A Cry to President Tinubu to Save a 79-Year-Old Widow’s Heritage”, published on blogs and shared across WhatsApp groups, falsely claiming that Rebecca faked ownership and stole family inheritance.

A submission to the Office of the Vice President, demanding the prosecution of Homadil Realty, including attachments of photos of Homadil project sites with captions calling them “evidence of grand-scale fraud.”

A publication circulated among FCT stakeholders alleging that Rebecca “boasts of immunity from arrest” because of connections to top police officials and national figures.

A misleading petition to the EFCC alleging that Homadil Realty is a criminal syndicate with fake land titles. This was circulated to top security agencies and real estate networks.All of these were designed to incite public anger and sway legal opinion, without giving Rebecca or Homadil a fair hearing.

PART THREE: EFCC’S ROLE IN FANNING THE FLAMES – AND ICPC’S CONTRASTING PROFESSIONALISM

While the EFCC has a constitutional mandate to investigate financial crimes, its approach in the case involving Rebecca Omokamo Godwin-Isaac and Homadil Realty has drawn intense criticism from legal professionals, real estate stakeholders, and institutional watchdogs.

From the outset, the EFCC’s conduct has appeared rushed, aggressive, and procedurally unbalanced.Instead of concluding its investigation before taking enforcement actions—as expected under due process—the EFCC initiated a chain of punitive steps that effectively disrupted operations at Homadil Realty. These included:•

Arbitrary arrests of Homadil staff and agents across Abuja;•

Freezing of both corporate and personal bank accounts linked to Homadil without prior notice;•

Seizure of international passports belonging to directors and key management personnel;•

Strategic media briefings and selective leaks that framed the matter in a one-sided and premature light, long before any court filings or evidence disclosure.

The media storm generated by these leaks created a biased narrative in the public domain. Internal sources noted that journalists were given early access to unverified petitions and preliminary documents, which were immediately published across various platforms—generating a wave of public misinformation.

This strategy—whether deliberate or reckless—violated the principle of presumption of innocence enshrined in the Nigerian Constitution. It appeared to favor the interests of the petitioning party by influencing perception before facts could be judicially tested. The petitioning party, the Yesufu family, is led by Hajia Colleen Mero Yesufu, and includes her children—Abdulrahman Yesufu, Pastor Isaiah Yesufu, Maimunatu Yesufu, Nurudeen Yesufu, and Khadijah Yesufu.

The family, whose late patriarch was a high-ranking Permanent Secretary, has deep historical ties to Abuja’s bureaucratic and land administration structures.

These connections have raised concerns in some quarters about the possibility of legacy influence shaping both institutional behavior and public perception in this case.In stark contrast to this media-forward approach, the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) handled the matter with measured professionalism.

The ICPC received formal petitions regarding the same plots in question and proceeded to examine all documents, including land transaction records, AGIS certifications, and power of attorney instruments. Instead of resorting to public campaigns or media interference, the Commission conducted a quiet, methodical inquiry based strictly on law and evidence.Findings outlined in the ICPC’s affidavit submitted to the High Court of the FCT demonstrated the following:

That one party had used unclear, inconsistent addresses, causing delays in legal service;

That the search for the original allottee, Amina Usman Musa, was not conclusive but raised no immediate evidence of fraud;

That registry errors and administrative gaps could not justify the criminalization of property transfers made in good faith;

That the documents used by the Applicants had not been forensically disproven, making accusations premature and unsubstantiated.It was further observed that the Applicants had not committed any offence beyond what was already before the court, and any overlapping action could undermine judicial integrity.

ICPC therefore advised all parties to maintain respect for the sub judice principle and refrain from actions that could prejudice ongoing legal proceedings.The Commission did not release any public statements, engage in media briefings, or seek to tilt public opinion. Instead, they followed due diligence, maintained silence, and allowed the court to remain the sole arbiter.Similarly, the Nigerian Police Force, after reviewing the petition and conducting their own preliminary investigation, proceeded to arraign the couple as part of a legal process—not as an act of prejudice or political pressure.

Throughout, they remained professional, ensuring that the matter was handled through the courts with respect for due process and without public sensationalism or bias.

Their actions reflected a commitment to lawful procedure rather than media influence or coercion.These contrasting responses highlight a critical difference in institutional behavior. While some agencies sought publicity, others upheld procedure and justice. In this matter, the ICPC stands as an example of what balanced, evidence-driven, and constitutionally-aligned investigation should look like.This is all Homadil Realty and Rebecca Omokamo Godwin-Isaac have ever asked: a fair process, driven by facts—not fear, not favoritism, and certainly not falsehoods.

PART FOUR: THE LEGAL STRATEGY OF MAXWELL OKPARA – AGITATION OVER EVIDENCE

Representing the Yesufu family is Barrister Maxwell Okpara, a legal practitioner whose methods in this case have raised widespread concerns. Known more for provocative litigation and media theatrics than for evidence-based advocacy, Okpara has played a central role in escalating this civil matter into a public spectacle.His court filings include:

Multiple affidavits filled with broad, vague allegations, inflammatory language, and conflicting timelines;• Legal threats directed at AGIS officials and police personnel, particularly those who refused to affirm the Yesufu family’s disputed claims;

Public statements accusing Homadil of forgery and criminal behavior, yet failing to provide any forensic evidence, official title history, or valid ownership documentation.Observers have noted that Okpara’s filings are often designed to incite emotion rather than establish legal clarity. His press briefings—many conducted outside courtrooms—frequently accuse government institutions of corruption while simultaneously demanding they act in his client’s favor.

Additionally, Okpara has submitted contradictory documents to different agencies, a move that has confused proceedings and drawn criticism from within the legal community. Legal analysts have questioned whether the intent of his involvement is to reclaim land through lawful adjudication—or to stifle and pressure Homadil Realty through judicial ambush and reputational sabotage.

This style of legal engagement, which relies on public manipulation rather than courtroom proof, risks undermining public trust in the justice system. It shifts focus from facts to performance, from law to spectacle. And in doing so, it damages not just the accused—but the credibility of the courts themselves.

At the center of a serious legal conflict involving millions of naira in real estate and multiple families’ reputations, the Nigerian public deserves more than drama. It deserves truth, evidence, and fair process—none of which can be achieved through the playbook of distractions, distortions, and intimidation.

PART FIVE: LEGACY CONNECTIONS AND INFLUENCE IN LAND BUREAUCRACYOne of the most concerning aspects underlying this dispute is the institutional access and legacy power wielded by the Yesufu family. The matriarch, Hajia Colleen Mero Yesufu, and her children—Abdulrahman Yesufu, Pastor Isaiah Yesufu, Maimunatu Yesufu, Nurudeen Yesufu, and Khadijah Yesufu—come from a privileged bureaucratic background. Their late father, a former Permanent Secretary, held considerable sway within the Federal Capital Territory Administration (FCTA) and related agencies.

Over time, credible reports have pointed to long-standing connections between members of the Yesufu family and senior officials within the Abuja Geographic Information Systems (AGIS), Federal Capital Development Authority (FCDA), and FCTA land units. These agencies control the mechanisms of land allocation, title verification, and revocation in Abuja. Allegations suggest that these connections may have enabled the Yesufu family to:

Influence internal file movements or retrievals;•Insert or revise records linked to disputed plots; Delay or obscure AGIS verification processes;

Gain priority access to confidential land data not accessible to the general public.While these claims are still under legal and journalistic scrutiny, they have raised profound concerns about fairness in land disputes. Many stakeholders in the real estate and legal sectors have questioned how such a complex and formally documented transaction like Homadil’s could be challenged so forcefully without any documented proof from the accusers.In a capital where land is political currency, the potential misuse of insider ties threatens the credibility of land management systems.

It puts private developers—especially those without legacy ties or political shields—at risk of institutional sabotage.As the court processes move forward, it becomes critical that the judiciary and oversight agencies examine not just the surface dispute, but the systemic advantages and influence that may have shaped this controversy from the shadows.

PART SIX: MEDIA COMPLICITY AND THE ARCHITECTURE OF FALSEHOODSAn equally troubling aspect of this saga is the role played by certain media houses in amplifying and legitimizing falsehoods. Rather than uphold journalistic integrity and investigate all sides of the issue, a number of media outlets willingly became mouthpieces for one-sided narratives orchestrated by the Yesufu family and their allies.Bloggers, online tabloids, and even some mainstream platforms published sensational, defamatory, and largely unverified claims against Rebecca Omokamo Godwin-Isaac, her husband Isaac Ishaku Yusuf, and Homadil Realty Ltd. Headlines accused them of land grabbing, forgery, and corruption—without any supporting documentation or balanced reporting.Some reports went so far as to publish internal EFCC memos and photos of Homadil project sites, misrepresenting lawful construction as evidence of criminal activity. Others published anonymous letters and leaked petitions, failing to follow up with any rebuttal or even attempt to obtain responses from those accused.In doing so, these media houses acted not as neutral observers but as enablers of reputational harm—fueling a narrative that was designed to taint public opinion and prejudice legal outcomes before the courts had even convened.This weaponization of the press for political or personal gain is dangerous. It undermines trust in journalism, deepens public cynicism, and violates the rights of individuals to be presumed innocent until proven otherwise. When the media abandons its duty to fact-check and becomes a tool of propaganda, the foundations of free speech and democratic fairness begin to crumble.The public deserves the truth—not weaponized journalism. And the individuals and organizations who have suffered at the hands of these false publications deserve a platform to clear their name and pursue justice.Media must inform, not inflame. It must expose truth—not execute trial by tabloid.________________________________________PART SEVEN: HOMADIL’S RESPONSE – LAW, EVIDENCE, AND TRANSPARENCYThroughout this ordeal, Rebecca and her team at Homadil Realty have responded with restraint and respect for due process. They have:• Submitted every requested document to the EFCC, ICPC, Nigerian Police, and AGIS.• Honored every court date and refused to engage in personal attacks.• Provided verified records showing how each plot was acquired, paid for, and registered.• Refused to retaliate with smear campaigns against the Yesufus, instead opting to let the law speak.Their demand is simple: Let the courts decide. Let fairness, not legacy or influence, determine ownership.________________________________________The scapegoating of Rebecca Omokamo Godwin-Isaac and Homadil Realty Ltd stands in stark contrast to the complete lack of accountability shown toward those who truly initiated the transactions and processed the disputed documents. It is important to emphasize that Architect Richard John Idakwagi, as the seller of Plot 4022A09 Guzape, and various AGIS staff, who were directly responsible for verifying, endorsing, and issuing the plot documentation, played crucial roles in the transactions. Their names, however, remained suspiciously absent from public disclosures and EFCC actions until a public backlash made it politically expedient to add Richard to the case—long after the damage to Rebecca’s reputation had been done.The AGIS officials in question are alleged to have manipulated, overlooked, or directly enabled irregularities in title processing. Yet, there has been no move to suspend, investigate, or publicly name these officers, despite the fact that any false documentation would logically originate from within the agency’s walls, not from the buyer who paid in full and in good faith. This selective blindness, combined with the EFCC’s disproportionate pursuit of only the last link in the transaction chain, reveals an intentional effort to protect entrenched insiders while laying blame solely at the feet of a legitimate businesswoman.Perhaps the most glaring inconsistency in this entire saga is the selective nature of the accusations and the glaring omissions in both legal filings and public narratives. Despite multiple transactions in the chain of ownership, only Rebecca Omokamo Godwin-Isaac, her husband Isaac Ishaku Yusuf, and their company Homadil Realty Ltd have been the subject of scrutiny, arrest, and public condemnation.This selective enforcement raises urgent questions:• Why has Architect Richard John Idakwagi, the CEO of Rychado Homes—the individual who sold Plot 4022A09 Guzape to Homadil—never been arrested, interrogated, or named in any official or media document until very recently?• Why has no staff member from AGIS, the very agency accused of document manipulation and improper data entry, ever been publicly mentioned or investigated in connection to this matter?• Why are the so-called “fake documents” not being traced back to the registry handlers or previous endorsers—the very actors who had administrative control at the point of issuance?Instead, the spotlight remains on Rebecca—who purchased the property in good faith, through verified channels, with documented payments and approvals.This double standard suggests that the case is not really about land, but about who holds power and who dares to enter spaces typically reserved for entrenched elites. The orchestrated focus on Rebecca and Homadil while conveniently omitting equally responsible—or more directly connected—parties is a telltale sign of targeted victimization.Public discourse, including online forums, social media discussions, and even whistleblower commentary has increasingly picked up on this imbalance. Numerous users have pointed out that if this were truly about fraud or conspiracy, all actors in the chain—including those who signed, approved, endorsed, and processed these transactions—should be equally liable. But the silence around those individuals has been deafening.Online investigations have revealed that names of certain AGIS officials involved in past irregular land transactions have surfaced in similar complaints but never face disciplinary measures. Likewise, no action was taken against Rychado Homes until it became strategically useful—long after hundreds of publications had focused solely on Rebecca. Only recently—after intense backlash—was Richard quietly added to the case. This belated inclusion appears to be a cosmetic gesture aimed at deflecting growing public scrutiny. What is particularly revealing is that Architect Richard John Idakwagi, under no duress and with full awareness of the implications, personally informed the EFCC Chairman, Mr. Ola Olukoyede, the Director of Investigations, Mr. Abdulkareem Chikkol, and at least three other senior officials within the Commission that he was the original allottee and confirmed unequivocally that he sold Plot 4022A09 Guzape to Mrs. Rebecca Omokamo Godwin-Isaac, CEO of Homadil Realty Ltd. This admission was not a casual statement; it was made during a formal interaction with the top echelon of the anti-corruption agency. He provided the transaction details, including proof of payment and the timeline of events, which clearly establish that Rebecca was a bonafide purchaser and not in any way linked to forgery or fraudulent acquisition.This confession should have immediately shifted the investigative lens toward the actual originators and custodians of the documents—namely Richard and the AGIS officials responsible for processing the documentation. Instead, it was inexplicably omitted from the EFCC’s press briefings, internal communiqués, and public disclosures. No action was taken to investigate the authenticity of Richard’s initial allotment or the oversight by AGIS staff during the reissuance process. This raises serious concerns about whether the EFCC’s investigation is being manipulated to protect those within the inner circle of land administration, while conveniently targeting a businesswoman who simply entered a transaction in good faith. This direct confession should have immediately redirected the trajectory of the investigation toward the source of the transaction. Instead, it was conveniently muted in the EFCC’s public communications, further solidifying the suspicion that Rebecca was being deliberately targeted while others were being shielded.It is clear that the root of this controversy lies not with Rebecca or Homadil, but with those who initiated and facilitated the transactions: the sellers, the AGIS officials, and the system that allowed the documents to be processed without flags. Yet these players continue to operate in the background, shielded from the glare of investigation and accountability.This leads to a troubling hypothesis: that Rebecca is being punished not for wrongdoing, but for her audacity to succeed, to compete, and perhaps for her proximity to visibility and leadership. The pattern mirrors what is commonly seen when systemic powers wish to neutralize rising voices in entrepreneurship and governance.There may be political motivations at play. Some have suggested that her rising profile, business influence, and connections in real estate and policy circles pose a threat to those accustomed to monopolizing such spaces. Others believe she is a convenient scapegoat to divert attention from internal rot within AGIS and land administrative systems—by choosing a woman, a company, and a family with increasing public clout as the fall guys.Whatever the motive, the facts remain unchanged: Rebecca and Homadil acted lawfully, while those with questionable oversight roles remain protected in the shadows. Until the likes of Richard and the AGIS staff are equally held to account, justice remains not only incomplete—it is compromised.Real justice requires courage—the courage to pursue truth wherever it leads, even when it implicates the powerful or uncomfortable.
________________________________________PART NINE: COURTROOM THEATRE – MEDIA AS A TOOL OF INTIMIDATIONOn June 18, 2025, during a scheduled hearing of the ongoing case. Instigated by Barrister Maxwell Okpara and the Yesufu family, an unexpected scene unfolded at Court 6 of the Federal High Court. Members of the media—many suspected to have been coordinated by the petitioners—attempted to barge into the courtroom with recording equipment, despite clear protocols against such conduct.Their goal appeared transparent: to sensationalize the legal process and humiliate Mrs. Rebecca Omokamo Godwin-Isaac in public. They sought images, videos, and confrontational soundbites that would serve to further the already aggressive online and tabloid narrative against her. Thankfully, the judiciary stood firm—court officers denied all attempts to record proceedings, preserving the sanctity and neutrality of the court.Not deterred, the media operatives then stationed themselves by the court’s exit corridors, waiting for hours in an attempt to ambush Rebecca and other Homadil representatives as they departed. Their hopes were dashed when, after a prolonged and fruitless wait, they left empty-handed—unable to manufacture the public drama they had envisioned.It is crucial to point out that the Yesufu family published yet another defamatory article online that same day—June 18, 2025. This timing raises suspicion about the coordinated nature of their public relations assault. The goal seems to be not just legal victory, but reputational annihilation. By abusing media access and attempting courtroom ambushes, they have shown their intent to win not by law, but by shame and spectacle.These acts are not isolated incidents; they are part of a larger campaign to publicly discredit and mentally exhaust the respondents. Such tactics have no place in a civilized judicial system and highlight the urgent need for court officials to sanction the misuse of media in ongoing litigation.________________________________________PART TEN: WILL RICHARD STAND BY HIS STORY? – THE THREAT OF COORDINATED TURNAROUNDSAs the narrative surrounding this case continues to evolve under the public spotlight, a looming concern remains: will Architect Richard John Idakwagi maintain the truth he has already sworn to? Having directly informed top EFCC officials—including Chairman Mr. Ola Olukoyede and Director of Investigations Mr. Abdulkareem Chikkol—that he was the legal allottee of Plot 4022A09 Guzape and that he sold it to Mrs. Rebecca Omokamo Godwin-Isaac, the credibility of the investigation hinges heavily on his consistency.However, with the mounting pressure, the EFCC’s refusal to publicly acknowledge his confession, and the Yesufu family’s demonstrated influence within law enforcement and media circles, there are legitimate concerns that Richard may eventually reverse his testimony.Observers are beginning to speculate: Could there be an attempt to coerce or persuade Richard into altering his original statement? Would he be promised immunity, compensation, or other incentives in exchange for aligning his narrative with the one advanced by the Yesufu family and their legal strategist, Barrister Maxwell Okpara?

It would not be the first time in Nigeria’s history that a witness flips under duress or influence. And with the pattern of selective persecution and media weaponization already established, the stakes for maintaining factual integrity could not be higher.

Should Richard succumb to such pressure, it would mark a catastrophic failure not only of the justice system but of institutional courage.If, however, Richard stays true to the facts, he will stand as a rare figure who chose the path of honesty despite political, social, or legal intimidation. His testimony is the cornerstone upon which this house of cards could either collapse—or be reinforced by falsehood.Worryingly, there is already evidence that the EFCC had previously coerced Richard to alter or obscure critical parts of his initial testimony. Despite his early confession that he sold the land to Rebecca and provided full documentation to that effect, Richard’s name was intentionally excluded from the initial list of defendants and persons of interest.

This omission is striking given his central role in the transaction. It was only after overwhelming documentary evidence and growing public outcry that the EFCC reluctantly added his name to the charge sheet—many months and hundreds of defamatory publications later.

This delay and earlier omission raise pressing concerns: Was Richard being shielded as part of a deal?

Was he promised leniency in exchange for silence or redirection of blame? Did powerful interests within the EFCC or connected to the Yesufu family advise him to keep Rebecca in the line of fire while distancing himself?

Any future change in his narrative, especially one that contradicts his original confession, would only affirm what many now suspect—that the system is being twisted to punish the innocent and protect the complicit. In a nation striving to rebuild trust in its justice system, such manipulation is not just unethical—it is dangerous.

This section is not a prediction but a warning: any attempt to manipulate Richard’s account should be seen for what it is—a coordinated strategy to cement a miscarriage of justice.

The public, judiciary, and media must remain alert to any sudden “new revelations” or contradictory affidavits that emerge from Richard’s end.Justice is not served by shifting narratives. It is served by upholding truth—even when that truth is inconvenient to powerful interests.

PART ELEVEN: THE MUKHTAR GALADIMA ERIKI UMAR CONNECTION – LAND RACKETEERING DISGUISED AS ENFORCEMENT

In a development that raises even further questions about the integrity of the campaign against Rebecca Omokamo Godwin-Isaac and Homadil Realty Ltd, it has come to light that Mukhtar Galadima Eriki (full name: Mukhtar Galadima Eriki Umar), a senior FCTA official and associate of the Yesufu family, has been implicated in a major multi-billion-naira land fraud scandal.

A court recently ordered his arrest, along with 11 others, for their alleged involvement in land racketeering and fraudulent reallocations across Abuja. This news was widely reported on June 18, 2025, by BarristerNG and other reputable sources: Court Orders Arrest of FCTA Director, 11.

Others.https://barristerng.com/court-orders-arrest-of-fcta-director-11-others-over-alleged-multi-billion-naira-abuja-land-fraud/This revelation is far more than a side note—it is an explosive turning point. Eriki, who held considerable power within the Department of Development Control under the FCTA, had long been perceived as the enforcer of the Yesufu family’s land disputes.

He was the same official who issued and championed the recommendation to demolish the structure legitimately built by Homadil Realty Ltd on Plot 4022A09 Guzape. At the time, this recommendation was masked under the veil of official enforcement; however, in light of his arrest warrant, that action now appears deeply tainted.

The question that must be asked is simple: how could a man already suspected of coordinating fraudulent land allocations be allowed to recommend the demolition of property in a case he had personal and political interests in?

The answer, unfortunately, reflects a larger rot within land administration and enforcement practices in the FCT. Eriki’s ties to the Yesufu family, both formally and informally, are now too glaring to ignore.

Their network of collaborators within the public service has further enabled their aggressive tactics.

These individuals include Fidelis Michael (NSA), Bawa Michael (Development Control), General Counsel Barr. Salman Y. Dako, Architect Aisha Bello Soso of FCDA, and Eriki Joseph, Director of FCDA Investigations.

These officials, either by action or complicity, have supported or advanced the Yesufu family’s efforts to undermine due process, target Homadil Realty, and push for demolition and seizure under questionable pretenses. Sources within the civil service have alluded to a longstanding relationship wherein Eriki facilitated administrative outcomes favorable to the Yesufus, while conveniently targeting entities like Homadil Realty who were seen as obstacles or threats.Even more disturbing is the timing. Eriki’s legal troubles and his relationship with the Yesufus become even more relevant when one considers that his call for demolition was given priority attention by agencies such as the EFCC, which otherwise showed apathy toward arresting or charging the AGIS officials who processed the documents under scrutiny. Instead, enforcement energy was focused on bulldozing a structure backed by legitimate approvals—based purely on Eriki’s word.Let us be clear: a man now accused of being part of a multi-billion-naira land fraud ring had enough sway to initiate punitive action against a law-abiding private developer, all while protecting the interests of his allies. This not only undermines public trust in the neutrality of government institutions, but it also reaffirms that Homadil Realty was not simply the subject of scrutiny—it was the target of an orchestrated takedown.

The EFCC, already under scrutiny for biased investigation tactics and delayed prosecution of other actors, must now explain its reliance on a figure like Eriki.

Was his recommendation vetted? Were his ties to the complainants (the Yesufu family) ever disclosed in official correspondence? And most crucially, will the EFCC now investigate whether its own enforcement actions were tainted by information provided by a man now legally branded a racketeer?The credibility of every public office rests on one key pillar: impartiality. When that pillar is corrupted, the entire institution risks collapse.

Mukhtar Galadima Eriki’s downfall is not merely a personal tragedy; it is a case study in how corrupted individuals in power can weaponize their authority to carry out vendettas on behalf of private interests.It is now time for the FCTA, EFCC, and other agencies to open their books and face public accountability. Because as long as people like Eriki shape enforcement outcomes, no law-abiding citizen or enterprise is truly safe.Eriki’s name is not unfamiliar in the context of Plot 4022 Guzape.

As a figure who recommended and advocated for the demolition of Homadil’s legitimate development on the disputed plot, his alignment with the Yesufu family’s interests is now seen in a much darker light.

His public actions against Rebecca were masked as official duties, but in reality, they now appear to form part of a coordinated land-grab operation.

His arrest warrant solidifies the suspicion that individuals involved in manipulating land records and enforcement channels were never acting out of justice—but out of personal and syndicate-driven interests.If one of the very people recommending demolition is himself indicted for large-scale land fraud, the entire credibility of the enforcement argument collapses.

The EFCC and other prosecuting authorities must now explain how such a compromised individual was allowed to steer the narrative and enforcement actions in this case.

The connection between Eriki and the Yesufu family adds another dimension of collusion and conflict of interest that must be publicly scrutinized.

This revelation casts a long shadow over every action previously taken at the behest of Eriki and his allies. It strengthens the case that Rebecca and Homadil were not only innocent but specifically targeted by a corrupt network using official institutions as tools for dispossession.

PART TWELVE: THE HUMAN COST – FAMILIES, WORKERS, AND BUSINESS UNDER SIEGE

While the public’s attention is often focused on the high-profile names in this dispute, few consider the real consequences of the EFCC’s premature actions and the Yesufu family’s coordinated smear campaign. Behind Homadil Realty are families, staff, contractors, and vendors whose lives and livelihoods have been severely affected.Over 50 staff were detained or questioned during EFCC raids. Work on multiple construction sites halted, causing delays in project delivery to legitimate clients who had legally purchased homes.

Financial operations were frozen, affecting payroll and vendor contracts. Clients began withdrawing or demanding refunds based on rumors—not facts.

This was not simply a legal issue—it became a humanitarian and economic disruption, driven by institutional overreach and the unchecked power of public narrative. The damage done to innocent staff, engineers, marketers, and even community partners—many of whom depend on Homadil projects—is yet to be calculated.

PART THIRTEEN: A PATTERN OF INSTITUTIONAL ABUSE?

The Rebecca/Homadil vs. Yesufu saga may be a test case for how Nigeria handles powerful families leveraging public institutions for private disputes. It raises critical questions: Why did the EFCC act before concluding its investigation?

Why were Yesufu family members not subjected to the same scrutiny as Homadil? Why did media outlets get access to confidential EFCC documents, while court records remain sealed?

Why has Barr. Okpara faced no sanction for spreading inconsistent affidavits and publishing emotional appeals disguised as evidence?Unless these questions are asked and answered, this case sets a dangerous precedent—one where the perception of guilt is more damaging than the reality of innocence, and where influence trumps documentation.

PART FOURTEEN: CLOSING THOUGHTS – LAND, LAW AND LEGACYThis matter is no longer simply a land dispute. It is a referendum on how we treat justice in Nigeria—whether our institutions serve all citizens equally, or bend in favor of those with legacy connections. It is about whether a woman’s legitimate rise through enterprise can be derailed by smear campaigns. It is about whether we will build a society governed by documentation, not defamation.At its core, this case challenges every Nigerian to reflect on the country we are building. Are we creating a republic where institutions work for everyone, regardless of background, gender, or influence? Or are we protecting an elite system where power, not truth, dictates outcomes?

The targeting of Rebecca Omokamo Godwin-Isaac, her husband Isaac Ishaku Yusuf, and their company Homadil Realty Ltd speaks to a broader problem: the silencing of new voices in business and leadership who dare to compete without political lineage.

Their success—built on transparency, diligence, and lawful acquisition—should be celebrated, not criminalized.And yet, the tools of law enforcement, the weight of bureaucracy, and the weapon of public misinformation were all turned against them in an attempt to wear down their will and public image. But they remain steadfast. Their records remain intact. Their integrity remains unblemished.Their message is unwavering:

“We will not be bullied into silence. We trust the courts, we trust the Constitution, and we trust that truth, in the end, must prevail.

”This is not merely about personal redemption.

It is about setting a national precedent that rights can still triumph over influence, that courts must be the final arbiter—not the court of public opinion manipulated by legacy networks.To every aspiring entrepreneur, to every reform-minded leader, and to every citizen who believes in the supremacy of law, the Homadil story is your story.

The moment we allow fabricated narratives to eclipse verified facts, we lose more than property—we lose democracy, trust, and justice itself.

As Nigerians and as global citizens, it is time we raise our voices against weaponized lawfare, reclaim the purity of our legal system, and restore faith in due process as the cornerstone of our republic.