Nyesom Wike is a lawyer. Therefore, in the context of Nigeria, he is considered very learned. He was a former Executive Governor of Rivers State. Consequently, he had experienced what it means to hold state land in trust for the people of his State. Currently, he is the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, where he is much preoccupied with the issue of land, especially in terms of allocation and payment of annual ground rents.

Without any jot of doubt, if, for whatever reason, allotees are required to pay for the rental of the land on which they have their houses, good citizenship requires prompt payment without exercise of iota of pressure. For various reasons of force majeure, a tenant of the land might not be disposed to make quick payment within a certain delay. It is important to differentiate between non-payment for several years or decades and non-payment for the current year. What is done in civilized bureaucracies is that notices are given to tenants before the time of expiration of the current year of payment. Reminders are also sent. In Nigeria, it is completely different a kettle of fish and threats galore. The threats, most unfortunately, are driven by inefficiency, remissness, and lack of finesse in political governance.

In the Vie Internationale of last week Sunday, I drew public attention to the many ways of killing Nigeria softly. The following day, Monday, June 2, 2025, Nyesom Wike placed an advert in some newspapers demanding that ground rent defaulters were given two weeks to settle their rents or face the repercussion of withdrawal of their Certificates of Occupancy (C of O). I pointed out that for the property I paid for in 2004, the C of O was yet to be given to me, even as of this time of writing. Does the FCT Minister not know that many houses have been revoked in the past but the new tenants have not been able to settle in peace? Does he not remember that Nigeria has not only signed, ratified and domesticated the 1961 and 1963 Vienna Conventions on Diplomatic and Consular Relations respectively? Most disturbingly, does he not ponder on the implications of threatening and having to violate embassies in Nigeria? 

The killing of Nigeria softly began with her very porous foundation. Great Britain, Nigeria’s colonial master, knew quite well that Nigeria had many tribes whose ‘tongues may differ.’ According to Nigeria’s National Anthem, ‘though tribe and tongue may differ, in brotherhood we stand.’ The Anthem adds that all Nigerians are ‘proud to serve our Sovereign Motherland.’ Most unfortunately, Nigerian leaders never allowed the opportunity to truly build a Sovereign Motherland. Nigeria, since 1960, has been without true Nigerians and those of us known as Nigerians do not have a Nigeria founded on patriotism to exist. It is quite arguable to posit that Nigeria is a nation. This partly explains why Chief Obafemi Awolowo rightly described Nigeria as a geographical expression.

Chief Awolowo could not have been more correct. Nigerians deceive themselves by accepting international designation of Nigeria as a nation-state. Nigeria is not a nation-state. Nigeria can be rightly described as a State on the basis of the criteria of international law which stipulates the union of government, population, and territory as constituent elements of a State. Put differently, there must be a government that has the capacity and capability to implement the State’s internationally-contracted obligations, as well as be able to maintain law and orderliness. There must also be a territory without which there will be no place to exercise the right of sovereignty. The same is true if there is no population. Leadership is, at best, meaningless if there is no followership. Government without population is meaningless.

Nigeria meets these criteria. Even though one school of thought argues that it is not sufficient to meet the three conditions to enter into international relations. The School argues that a State must still be recognized as a State before it can establish diplomatic relations with another sovereign State. For Nigeria, the criteria are not only met as a sovereign State, but has also been internationally recognized. This international recognition is best explained by the fact of admission of Nigeria as the 99th Member State of the United Nations. Additionally, Nigeria’s Prime Minister, Alhaji Abubakar Tafawa Balewa was personally received by the US President. John F. Kennedy during his 8-day State Visit to the United States in July 1961. He was first received in Washington at the Blair House during the first four days. He was later honoured with an Honorary Doctorate of Law by the New York University. All these explain the recognition of Nigeria as a nation-state but not really in its sociological sense.

What is noteworthy in this regard, however, is that Nigerian leaders were very conscious that Nigeria was not truly a nation, This is why they asked in their National Anthem God almighty, the God of all creation, to help them ‘to build a nation where no man is oppressed.’ There are two implications in this prayer. First is the recognition that Nigeria was not yet a nation, hence the request for divine assistance to build a nation. Second is the fact that Nigerian leaders did not want just any nation but a nation that would be free from oppression and injustice.

The problematic for most Nigerians is that they do not always know what their greatest problem is all about, which, a priori, is about the need to build a Nigerian Nation. Dishonesty of purpose, political chicanery, reckless and deliberate embezzlement of public funds, engagement in scientific rigging of election, preaching the sermons of democracy under which poor governance, characterized by lack of accountability and transparency, cannot but militate against true nation-building. As noted in the 1987 Political Bureau’s Report by Professor J.S, Cookey, corruption and societal indiscipline began in Nigeria in 1967. This was the third stage in the continuum of the killing of Nigeria. The first two levels were the January 15, 1966 coup d’état and the July 29, 1966 coup d’état.

The civil war of national unity that erupted in 1967 was to reverse Nigeria from disintegration. Fortunately, General Yakubu Gowon won the battles but, unfortunately, never won the war. The war is being fought in various ramifications in Nigeria of today. This is why Nigeria is still variously challenged by boko haramism and armed banditry, Fulani herdsmen-farmers’ imbroglio, agitations for self-determination, and why notable politicians collude with Nigeria’s enemies, within and without, to disintegrate Nigeria. When one British Prime Minister told the United Nations General Assembly more than a decade ago that there was a training camp in the FCT, we read the report and wrote in this column on the dangers. There is nothing to suggest that action was taken on the matter. When we also complained about why Nigeria had to be reported to the United Nations rather than reporting the matter through a note verbale to Nigeria, Government never bothered. It was this don’t care attitude that might have prompted the direct reporting to the United Nations. This attitude is another expression of killing Nigeria softly.

Again, where is the place of honour in the society? Traditional chieftaincy used to be conferred on people with noble integritas, on people who unflinchingly contribute to community development. The title of a ‘Doctor’ used to be for medical practitioners or for holders of a doctorate degree. Today, school certificate holders go for training programmes for one year or for 18 months and graduate, As vocational graduates, they are called ‘Dr.’ this or ‘Dr.’ that. Those who train as professional tailors for two or three years, without primary or secondary education, wear university-type of academic gowns on the day of their freedom. They too are graduates. 

And true enough again, in Nigeria, mechanics, carpenters, etc. now answer ‘automobile’ and ‘building’ engineers. Even the original engineers have adopted the word ‘Engineer’ as a title. Non-career ambassadors call themselves Ambassadors contrarily to diplomatic practice. They cannot normally use the title of an ambassador when not in office. They can only use it as a title when in office. Only a career ambassador has the right to use the title after retirement. Again, there is nothing like Barrister this or Barrister that. Lawyers are not supposed to use ‘barrister’ as a title. Doing so is Nigerianomania. 

There is nothing wrong if Nigerians have their own mania to show peculiarity and originality. However, great caution must be taken before changing internationally-accepted standards. Not reckoning with civilized international standards is killing Nigeria softly while the whole world will sit down quietly waiting for Nigeria’s downfall. What the Government and leaders of Nigeria easily forget is that none of the big powers wants any strong Nigeria that will be capable to challenge them. Nigeria used to be respected when there was oil boom. Big powers give development loans to prevent original development thinking and creativity of the recipients. This is killing Nigeria softly. 

The soft approach to killing Nigeria is gradually becoming more complex and Government does not appear to be weighing the diplomatic implications for national unity and integration. The threats by the FCT Minister to close some embassies in Abuja for not paying ground rents have the potential to seriously kill Nigeria without the use of force. They also have the great potential to deny PBAT of contesting the 2027 presidential election not because of non-eligibility, but primarily because of the likelihood of international hostility that may not be helpful to Nigeria’s image under PBAT.

On Monday, June 2, 2025, the Federal Capital Territory Administration placed a ‘Demand Notice on Payment of Ground Rent in the Federal Capital Territory in ThisDay newspaper (vide pp. 29-84). As advertised, ‘all allottees/property owners, as well as beneficiaries of landed properties from the scheme of Sale of Federal Government Houses in the FCT who have not paid or settled their ground rents up to the Year 2024, are hereby given FOURTEEN (14) DAYS from the date of this publication to pay their Ground Rents, to avoid revocation or withdrawal of title.’ 

Additionally, the advert reminded ‘the general public, particularly allottees/title holders

of landed properties in the Federal Capital Territory, of their obligations to the FCTA as stipulated in the covenanted terms and conditions of the Rights of Occupancy/Certificates of Occupancy to wit: “pay in advance without demand to the Federal Capital Territory Administration the Annual Ground Rent from the first date of January of each year. 

In this regard, a ground rent defaulter does not only refer to those who have not paid up till end of 2024 but also to those who have not complied with the requirement of payment as “from the first date of January of each year.’ What does ‘as from the first date of January’ mean? ‘As from’ is quite different from ‘on’ January 1.’ Payments made in February or March of each year cannot be a negation of ‘as from’ but it is a negation for ‘on January 1’ which is more specific. 

Whatever is the case, the issue is that neither ‘as from’ or ‘on January 1’ not even the covenanted terms and conditions of the Rights of Occupancy, can be applicable to any allottee, like me. to whom no Certificate of Occupancy is given.

Many points and implications are therefore noteworthy in the FCTA’s advertorial, especially for the analytical purposes of diplomatic inviolability of a diplomatic mission regardless of whatever name it answers: Embassy, High Commission, High Representative, Permanent Mission, Papal or Apostolic Nuncios, legations, People’s Bureaus as formerly used by Libya, etc.

First is the conditionality and obligation of payment of ‘up to the year 2024.’ The implication of this is that payment for the current year, 2025 is excluded. As I noted last Sunday, my name was listed as one of the ground rent defaulters, whereas I am on record to have made full payment up till 31 December, 2024. If we reckon with the rent outstanding against my name, N8,874 (Eight Thousand, Eight Hundred and Seventy-four Naira only), being rental payment for 2025, the message sent to me in the advertorial is that I should have made the rental charge in January 2024. The conflict in the different two deadlines is a reflection of inefficiency, especially in terms of information dissemination on which several embassies capitalized in their self-defence in the media. They generally argued about non-information notice.

Secondly, there are 34 advertised names of embassies in Cadastral AOO, nineteen of which are from Africa: Embassy of Islamic Republic of Mauritania; Embassy of Mali; Embassy of Republic of Congo; Embassy of the Republic of Zimbabwe; Embassy of Niger Republic; Embassy of Liberia; Sierra Leone High Commission; Tanzania High Commission; Uganda High Commission; South Africa High Commission; Embassy of the Republic of Côte d’Ivoire; Embassy of the Arab Republic of Egypt; Embassy of the Republic of Senegal; Embassy of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia; Kenya High Commission; Embassy of the Republic of Benin; Embassy of the Republic of the Sudan; The Gambia High Commission; and Embassy of the Democratic Republic of Congo. The 19 Missions account for 55.88% of the 34 embassies in the cadastral zone. Many other embassies not located in the Cadastral AOO have also been complaining.

The other 15 embassies are comprised of Asian, European, and Latino-Caribbean countries: Royal Thai Embassy, Embassy of the State of Kuwait, Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia, Embassy of the United Arab Emirates, Embassy of Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Embassy of the Republic of Indonesia, High Commission of India, as well as Embassy of Trinidad and Tobago, Embassy of Jamaica, Embassy of the Federative Republic of Brazil,  Embassy of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Embassy of Romania, Embassy of the Republic of Serbia, and Embassy of Russian Federation.

Visibly, Western European countries are not part of the ground rent defaulters. This observation raises some questions: why are they not part of the list of defaulters? Is it that some countries are religiously law abiding? Should any normally-accredited diplomatic mission to Nigeria be paying any rent to another sovereign State? If they have to pay, under what conditions? Answers to these questions make the provisions of the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations a desideratum at this juncture. The analyses cannot but focus on three subject matters: Definition of an Embassy, Principles of Ex-territoriality and Inviolability, Privileges and Limitations, bearing in mind the provisions of Vienna Convention on Relations and Optional Protocol on Disputes.

As regards the definition of an embassy, it is the conception and extensive scope that explain the rationales for the grant of privileges, immunities, protection, and inviolability. The notion and concept covers more than the Chancery. In other words, an embassy also includes diplomatic residencies, diplomatic vehicles, as well as the accredited diplomatic agents and their households. Article 1 of the Vienna Convention, which was done on 18 April 1961 in the then five languages of the United Nations (Chinese, English, French, Russian, and Spanish). Arabic was only introduced as one of the languages of the UN on 18 December 1973. The Vienna Convention came into force less than a week after signatures, on 24 April 1961, It differentiates between members of the diplomatic staff who have a diplomatic rank and the non-diplomatic members that have no diplomatic rank.

Article 22(1) says ‘the premises of the mission shall be inviolable’ and that ‘agents of the receiving State may not enter them, except with the consent of the head of the mission.’ Put differently, law enforcements are prohibited from entering any diplomatic mission without the express permission of the Ambassador who is the head of a diplomatic mission. The importance of this provision is further strengthened with the provision of Article 21 which requires the receiving State ‘to either facilitate the acquisition on its territory, in accordance with its laws, by the sending State of premises necessary for its mission or assist the latter in obtaining accommodation in some other way.’ Thus, the FCTA cannot afford the luxury of making life difficult for a diplomatic mission or seeking to enter an embassy forcefully or by manu militari, without also preparing for reciprocal measures.  

More importantly, Article 22(2) puts all signatories to the 1961 Convention ‘under a special duty to take all appropriate steps to protect the premises of the mission against any intrusion or damage and to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the mission or impairment of its dignity.’ And perhaps most importantly, Article 23 stipulates that ‘the sending State and the head of the mission shall be exempt from all national, regional or municipal dues and taxes in respect of the premises of the mission, whether owned or leased, such as represent payment for specific services rendered.’ What is a due and what is a tax in this case? Where exemption from payment of dues and taxes do not apply is under Article (3) which is only applicable if payment is under contractual dealings between private agents of the sending and receiving States. As provided, ‘the exemption from taxation referred to in this article shall not apply to such dues and taxes payable under the law of the receiving State by persons contracting with the sending State or the head of the mission.’

When media reports therefore talk about the intention of the FCT Minister Nyesom Wike to close down all diplomatic missions that do not pay their ground rent within 14 days counting from June 2, 2025, it is clear that the Minister has not considered the implications of violating international law. It simply means that Nyesom Wike has not recognized that the rule of reciprocity may not always apply on the basis of equity or equality. He has also forgotten that embassies have the international status of ex-territoriality which forbids the application of local laws to the exclusive conduct and management of the affairs of a diplomatic. Nyesom Wike has forgotten that threatening to close down a diplomatic mission is also an indictment of Bola Ahmed Tinubu as President of Nigeria and his foreign policy machinery which has the responsibility to ensure the protection of all accredited diplomatic missions to Nigeria. 

In fact, it is diplomatically unethical for the FCTA to relate directly with diplomatic missions in the media space on this matter of ground rent dispute. The Foreign Ministry is the medium through which all Nigerian Ministries, Departments, and Agencies are to relate with foreign diplomatic missions accredited to Nigeria. And true enough again, the international community knows that the Government of Nigeria only respects court rulings and judgments selectively and when convenient. Consequently, any conscious attempt to violate any embassy cannot but have deleterious consequences. Nyesom Wike should read what Article 22(3) says: ‘the premises of the mission, their furnishings and other property thereon and the means of transport of the mission shall be immune from search, requisition, attachment or execution.’ He should particularly read Article 29 on the inviolability of a diplomatic agent and Article 30 which extends inviolability to the private residences of diplomatic agents. Thus, chanceries, diplomatic residences, diplomatic vehicles and diplomatic families are constituents of an embassy. This explains why special diplomatic plate numbers like CD (Corps Diplomatique) and CMD (Chef de Mission Diplomatique) are differentiated from the general plate numbers in the receiving State. These diplomatic plate numbers are universally used by missions to facilitate their identity and unconditional protection by receiving States. 

The FCTA must therefore know its onions and limitation of its statutory powers in dealing with foreign governments. Terrorists often attack and violate diplomatic agents because diplomats are internationally protected. The FCTA is not a terrorist administration and should therefore not behave like one. The FCTA cannot generate revenues or promote governmental efficiency and effectiveness by acts of attitudinal remissness, administrative inefficiency, political chicanery, and incompleteness, because they only taint the image of Government. In other words, diplomatic missions claim non-notification about ground rent default and affirm having paid their ground rents up till December 2024. The German Embassy told The Punch newspapers on 9 June, 2025 that ‘no claim or demand has been formally brought to (its) attention by the FCT’ and that ‘all official financial obligations relating to the Embassy’s premises have been fully settled as of the end of 2024. There are no known outstanding payments.’ In the same vein, the Embassy of the Russian Federation says it ‘pays all bills for the rent of the territory on which the Embassy complex is located in good faith and on time. The Embassy also has all necessary documents confirming payment.’ Why is the FCTA unaware? Besides, the principles of sovereign equality and ex-territoriality of embassies do not allow for payment of any ground rent. However, if embassies still pay, it means the rule of reciprocity applies and the FCT Minister may not be blamed. But he is more than blamable if embassies do not owe and they are unnecessarily tainted on the altar of FCTA’s inefficiency. 

For the spokesman of the FCT Minister, Lere Olayinka, to explain that the claims would be ‘investigated and appropriate action will be taken,’ is most unfortunate. Why not first look before leaping? Why medicine after death? It is demeaning to ascribe institutional inefficiency to payments through the Remita platform. Why should someone be required to go physically to submit evidence of payment? This is more than self-ridiculing.