'Ile Arugbo': Saraki returns to court as dialogue with Kwara govt collapses

‘Ile Arugbo’: Saraki returns to court as dialogue with Kwara govt collapses

March 02

17:59 2020

Print This Article

The family of Olusola Saraki has returned to the court after collapse of the talks with the state government over the demolition of “Ile Arugbo”.

“Ile Arugbo”, known to be the political home of Olusola Saraki, father of the ex-Senate president, was demolished by the state government following the revocation of the land.

AbdulRahman AbdulRazaq, Kwara governor, had said the land originally designated for the construction of a secretariat and parking lot of the civil service clinic, was illegally allocated to Asa Investments Limited, a private firm said to be owned by the late father of the former senate president.

But Saraki tackled him and approached the court, claiming that the land was duly allocated and a right of occupancy title issued on it.

Both parties were advised to settle the matter out of court, leading to a meeting. The law firm representing the Saraki family had dilly dallied the peace talks by postponing a negotiation meeting.

A source had said the Sarakis deliberately delayed the meeting because they did not have a good case to present.

On Monday, Abdulazeez Ibrahim, one of the family’s lawyers, told the court that the meeting collapsed over non-agreement between both parties.

He said the Saraki family demanded “the reversal of the revocation order placed on the disputed land, reconstruction of the partially demolished structures on the land and offering of apology to the aged women that were harassed on the night the structures were pulled down.”

According to him, the family expressed the willingness to forgo the second and third demands for the sake of peace.

Ibrahim said the state government’s condition for settlement includes the non-revocation of the order placed on the disputed land.

Salman Jawondo, commissioner for justice and attorney general of the state, said the dialogue between both parties collapsed “when the claimants came out frontally that their demand for the reversal of the revocation order placed on the disputed land was not negotiable.”