By Sebastine Okafor, Ph.D.
In recent times, there have been reports of state governments in parts of South-East Nigeria, especially Anambra and Enugu States, demolishing private houses alleged to be hideouts for kidnappers and criminal groups. While the fight against insecurity is necessary and urgent, the method of destroying property based on suspicion raises serious legal and moral concerns. This article examines such actions through the lens of Nigerian law and fundamental human rights.
The 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) is the supreme law of the land. Section 44(1) of the Constitution clearly states that no movable or immovable property shall be taken possession of compulsorily without prompt payment of compensation and without access to a court of law. This means that even when the government seeks to acquire or destroy property, it must follow due process. Any action taken outside this provision is unlawful.
Demolishing a person’s house because it is suspected of being used for criminal activities does not automatically meet the requirement of due process. Suspicion is not proof. In law, every person is presumed innocent until proven guilty by a competent court, as stated in Section 36(5) of the Constitution. This principle is central to justice. When a house is destroyed without a court order or proper investigation, it punishes the owner without trial. This goes against the basic Rule of Law.
In many cases, properties targeted for demolition may not even belong to the suspected criminals. Landlords may have rented out their buildings without knowledge of their tenants’ illegal activities. Destroying such houses punishes innocent citizens who have committed no offense. This form of collective punishment is not supported by Nigerian law. The courts have held in several cases that punishment must be personal and based on proven guilt.
It is also important to consider the right to a fair hearing under Section 36(1) of the Constitution. Before any action that affects a person’s rights or property is taken, the individual must be given an opportunity to defend themselves. Demolition carried out without notice or hearing violates this right. Even where there is strong suspicion, the proper step is to investigate, arrest suspects, and prosecute them in court.
Supporters of such demolitions often argue that they serve as a deterrent to crime. While deterrence is a valid goal in criminal justice, it must not come at the expense of legality. The government is expected to lead by example by obeying the law. If the state begins to act outside the law, it weakens public trust and sets a dangerous pattern where rights can be ignored in the name of security.
There are also existing laws that guide how properties linked to crime should be handled. For instance, the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) provides procedures for the seizure, forfeiture, and management of assets connected to criminal activity. Under this law, a court must first establish that the property is indeed linked to crime before ordering forfeiture or destruction. This ensures that actions are based on evidence, not mere claims.
In Anambra State under Charles Soludo, recent demolitions include the Airtight Guest House and Bar at Y-Junction, Okpuno, Awka South LGA in March 2026. The operation, led by Mr. Ken Emeakayi, Special Adviser on Community Security, reportedly recovered illicit substances, an illegal firearm, and evidence suggestive of prostitution. Concerns were raised about the speed and political undertones of the demolition. Additionally, operatives of the Operation Clean and Healthy Anambra Brigade (OCHAB) demolished several structures at the Building Materials International Market in Ogidi, Idemili North LGA, citing that these were dens of criminals and hoodlums.
Similarly, in Enugu State under Peter Ndubuisi Mbah, demolitions include a large farm at Ogbeke-Nike housing poultry, piggery, and plantain plantations where firearms and other items were recovered, as well as properties at Nkwubor Layout in Emene, where 17 firearms, shrines, charms, and mini Indian hemp farms were destroyed. On October 5, 2024, a building in Amaebo Owelli, Awgu LGA, was also demolished after being identified as a kidnappers’ den. These actions were supervised by the Enugu Capital Territory Development Authority (ECTDA).
In response to questions about the legality of these demolitions, Mr. Uche Anya of ECTDA stated that the exercise was backed by a 2016 Enugu House of Assembly law and supported by the state’s anti-kidnapping law and the Criminal Code. He also noted that the government would take over demolished properties for public use, suggesting they could become playgrounds, parks, or healthcare centers.
While these statements may appear convincing, they overlook critical constitutional principles. No law, whether at the state or federal level, allows for property to be destroyed based on suspicion without giving the owner the opportunity to contest the claim in court. Section 44(1) and Section 36 of the Nigerian Constitution remain binding and override state-level proclamations. Even if properties are suspected of criminal use, evidence must first be presented in a competent court, and owners must be notified. Failure to adhere to these steps violates both domestic law and internationally recognized human rights, including the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.
Moreover, the argument that demolished properties will be converted for public use does not justify taking private property without compensation or due process. Such actions risk undermining public trust, create a precedent for abuse, and may be politically motivated under the guise of security operations. They may also punish innocent landlords and tenants who have no connection to crime, raising serious questions about collective punishment.
A better approach to tackling kidnapping and related crimes is to strengthen intelligence gathering, improve policing, and ensure swift prosecution of offenders. Courts can order the confiscation of properties proven to be used for crime after due process. This method respects the law while ensuring justice. Public awareness and citizen engagement are also vital. Property owners should document tenants carefully and report suspicious activity, creating a partnership between the government and citizens in maintaining security.
However, while the desire to end kidnapping and insecurity in Anambra and Enugu States is understandable, demolishing houses based on suspicion or unverified claims is not supported by Nigerian law. It violates constitutional provisions on property rights, fair hearing, and the presumption of innocence. The government must act within the law to maintain legitimacy, protect human rights, and ensure that justice is done and seen to be done.
Furthermore, these extra-judicial demolitions sometimes carry significant political undertones that cannot be ignored. Rapid destruction of properties, often under publicized operations, can create the impression of selective targeting, which raises concerns about fairness and the abuse of power. When actions appear politically motivated, they risk eroding public confidence in state authorities and the security agencies involved.
Normalizing extrajudicial property destruction under the guise of fighting crime sets a dangerous precedent, where suspicion alone becomes justification for violating citizens’ rights. Such practices could be exploited to intimidate opponents, settle personal disputes, or control communities, weakening both justice and democracy.
The fight against crime must be firm but lawful; any approach that sidesteps due process, disregards constitutional safeguards, or punishes the innocent diminishes the credibility of the government and harms the Rule of Law it claims to uphold.