Wike’s Son, Jordan, Acknowledged Receiving $2.1m For Abuja Property Deal, Businessman’s Lawyer Says
Wike’s Son, Jordan, Acknowledged Receiving $2.1m For Abuja Property Deal, Businessman’s Lawyer Says
Waru also challenged Jordan’s account of the date of the transaction, insisting that September 26, 2025, was when discussions about the business began, not the date the money was allegedly handed over.
Counsel to a businessman suing Jordan Wike, son of the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Nyesom Wike, has alleged that the minister’s son acknowledged receiving $2.1 million as part payment for a proposed real estate joint venture in Abuja.
The lawyer, Ibrahim Waru, made the allegation while speaking to journalists after proceedings in the case, which has been adjourned to December 1, 2 and 14, 2026, for continuation of trial.
The suit was filed by businessman Safwan Garba GY and his company, GY Global Oil and Gas Nigeria Limited, against Jordan over a disputed property-development arrangement.
Waru said the case had been misrepresented in some social media reports, particularly claims that the transaction involved 60 hectares of land in Guzape and Katampe, Abuja.
According to him, the dispute arose from a joint venture agreement under which the claimant was to contribute $4.2 million towards the construction of houses for sale, while Jordan was to provide 1.5 hectares of land in Guzape and 1.7 hectares in Katampe.
The lawyer said the parties agreed to share the proceeds from the proposed development, with the claimant receiving 60 per cent and Jordan taking the remaining 40 per cent.
“After payment of half of the contribution, because the claimant did give Jordan the sum of $2.1 million, which he acknowledged received, as a part payment of their own contribution to the business,” Waru said.
He alleged that the disagreement began after the payment, claiming that the parties’ understanding of the transaction changed.
“After collecting this money, the story became entirely different. That was how the problem started,” the lawyer added.
Jordan has previously denied receiving the money and maintained that his signature on documents presented in court in connection with the transaction was forged. The allegations remain contested, and the court has yet to determine the merits of the parties’ claims.
Waru also challenged Jordan’s account of the date of the transaction, insisting that September 26, 2025, was when discussions about the business began, not the date the money was allegedly handed over.
According to the lawyer, the actual payment took place on October 17, 2025, at a residence in Gwarinpa, Abuja, in the presence of two witnesses.
He said the witnesses, whom he described as young men who assisted in carrying the money and placing it in a vehicle, had testified before the court.
Waru said WhatsApp chats and calls between the parties formed part of the evidence presented by the claimants, adding that the communications were tendered as an exhibit.
He further questioned a boarding pass Jordan reportedly presented to support his claim that he was outside Nigeria on the disputed date.
According to the lawyer, the document did not specify the year of travel, and Jordan was unable to clarify when it was issued during questioning.
The competing accounts of the transaction date are central to the dispute. Jordan has previously denied receiving the alleged payment and disputed the documents linking him to the deal.
The court is yet to make a determination on whether the money was paid, whether the disputed acknowledgement was signed by Jordan, or whether the proposed joint venture was entered into as alleged by the claimants.
Claimants Seek Transfer Of Case
Waru also disclosed that he had written to the Chief Judge of the FCT High Court requesting that the case be reassigned to another judge.
He said the application followed concerns communicated to his team about alleged close family and community ties between Jordan and the presiding judge.
The lawyer said the request was intended to have the case transferred to another court for trial.
He added that the claimants had yet to receive a response from the relevant office regarding the request.
The application does not establish that the presiding judge is biased, and no determination on the request was disclosed by the lawyer.
The case is before the FCT High Court, presided over by Justice Sylvanus Oriji, and is marked CV/008/2026.
Lawyer Says EFCC Petition Remains Unanswered
Waru further said the claimants had petitioned the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) over the criminal allegations arising from the disputed transaction.
According to him, the petition was accompanied by supporting documents and other evidence requested from the complainants.
He said the claimants had complied with the requirements communicated to them but had yet to receive a substantive response from the commission.
“I was calling the IPO, but in fact I stopped calling because there has not been a response,” the lawyer said, referring to the investigating police officer.
The civil suit and the petition are separate processes. The allegations raised by the claimants have not been established by a court, and no finding of criminal wrongdoing against Jordan has been reported in connection with the disputed payment.
Background
The dispute centres on an alleged real estate joint venture to develop residential properties in Guzape and Katampe, two areas of Abuja.
The claimants say they were to provide $4.2 million for the project, while Jordan was expected to contribute the land. They allege that $2.1 million was paid in cash but that the proposed development did not proceed as agreed.
Jordan has denied receiving the money and challenged the authenticity of documents presented against him, including a disputed signature.
During earlier proceedings, the court directed Jordan to produce his American passport after he said he was outside Nigeria on the date the claimants initially identified as the date of the alleged payment. The passport was subsequently presented in court.
The claimants are seeking the recovery of the disputed $2.1 million, alongside damages and other reliefs.
The latest proceedings have brought renewed attention to the competing accounts of the transaction, including the date of the alleged payment, the authenticity of the documents and the terms of the proposed joint venture.
The court has adjourned the case to December 1, 2 and 14, 2026, for continuation of trial.
Credit X|Sahara Reporters 
