By Ephraim C. Okafor.
In every just society, the sanctity of land is not measured merely by its market value, but by the moral weight of the covenant upon which it is held. When that covenant is broken—whether by the State or by the altar—history itself must record its protest.
Such is the grievous situation now confronting the people of Orlu, where the Technical and Science Education Centre (TESAC)—the only tangible presence of the Imo State Government in Orlu—has been stripped away, relocated to Oru, and its ancestral premises allegedly requested by the Catholic Bishop of Orlu, Most Rev. Augustine Ukwuoma, for use by the Church purportedly for a university outreach or hotel enterprise.
To the ordinary ear, this might sound like a benign request. But in truth, it is a moral and legal misadventure, for the land in question was not a government-owned property but a leasehold—land leased by the indigenous owners of Orlu to the government for the singular and sacred purpose of public education.
The law is settled beyond argument that a lessee cannot alienate leased property to a third party without the consent of the lessor. In Ogunleye v. Oni (1990) 2 NWLR (Pt. 135) 745, the Supreme Court held that “a lease is not a conveyance of ownership, but a temporary and conditional estate dependent on the will and terms of the grantor.” And in Awojugbagbe Light Industries Ltd v. Chinukwe (1995) 4 NWLR (Pt. 390) 379, their Lordships declared that a tenant who uses demised land for a purpose inconsistent with the lease “forfeits the indulgence of possession.”
Thus, when the State, without the consent or authority of the lessors, proceeds to hand over that land—or even entertains a request for it—it commits an act of trespass wrapped in officialdom. The purported cession, whether perfected or proposed, is void ab initio under the timeless maxim nemo dat quod non habet—one cannot give what one does not own.
The Catholic Bishop of Orlu, Most Rev. Augustine Ukwuoma, by requesting the TESAC land, has unwittingly stepped into a controversy rooted in law and equity. The Church, noble in mission as it may be, ought to have exercised the due diligence of conscience and legality before coveting land already held under an unexpired lease for a public purpose. To seek possession of such land without the consent of the indigenous owners is to be drawn, however unintentionally, into the shadow of impropriety.
The Orlu people, lessors of that land, were never consulted. Their ancestral property—leased to government for education—has been diverted for political appeasement and ecclesiastical advantage, all without the slightest whisper of their consent. Such conduct is both legally indefensible and morally unsustainable.
As the Court observed in Amakor v. Obiefuna (1974) 1 All NLR (Pt. 1) 119, possession without title may sustain an action against a stranger, but not against the true owner. The true owners here are the indigenous landholders of Orlu, not the State, and certainly not any third party who requests or receives the land from the State in defiance of the lease covenant.
Let it be recorded for posterity that Orlu is not a silent province. Its people are patient, but not docile; forgiving, but not forgetful. What they leased in trust for the education of their children cannot be converted into a commercial or sectarian estate without their consent.
Therefore, I most respectfully call upon:
The Governor of Imo State,
The Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice, and
His Lordship, the Catholic Bishop of Orlu, Most Rev. Augustine Ukwuoma,
to reconsider this unlawful and inequitable transaction, to cease any attempt to alienate the TESAC land, and to restore the said property to its rightful indigenous owners, in line with the eternal demands of equity and justice.
For when public trust is broken, even the altar cannot sanctify the deed; and when the law is ignored, even faith must pause and listen to the voice of conscience.
Hon. Barr. Ephraim C. Okafor
Legal Practitioner & Public Affairs Advocate,
E.C. Okafor & Co. (Okemuo Chambers)*
