Onitsha Traders Petition IGP Over Alleged Plaza Demolition, Threats & Property Dispute
By AMAKA OHAFIAH
Traders Seek IGP’s Intervention
TRADERS in Onitsha, Anambra State, have petitioned the Inspector-General of Police over alleged commercial property demolitions, threats to their lives and a prolonged dispute over ownership and leadership of a market plaza.
Speaking to journalists in Abuja on Tuesday, members of the Association of Modebeb Traders alleged that they had endured nearly two years of harassment and intimidation. They accused some individuals of exploiting connections within security agencies to threaten traders.
The association’s spokesman, Chief Okey Muojekwu, said the dispute had disrupted business activities and created fear among members.
According to him, four buildings were demolished in 2025, including properties at numbers 77 and 79. He said the demolitions caused substantial financial losses to affected traders.
Muojekwu also alleged that property documents had been altered or forged to transfer ownership from Osumakan Model Ventures. Consequently, he called on the authorities to examine the records and establish the legitimate owners.
Traders Allege Attacks & Police Intimidation
Beyond the property dispute, Muojekwu accused some police personnel, including officers attached to an anti-narcotics command in Onitsha, of allegedly being used to intimidate traders.
He further claimed that suspected thugs recently stabbed him with a knife. Although he escaped and reported the incident to the police, he said the authorities had yet to take effective action and that threats had continued.
The traders also raised concerns over the alleged assault and removal of another individual, Chris Okon. According to Muojekwu, Okon was beaten at his residence and taken away alongside a woman.
He alleged that the woman remained in detention from Friday until Monday or Tuesday before her release. However, the account provided did not independently establish the circumstances surrounding the alleged incident.
In response to what they described as persistent intimidation, the traders urged the IGP to investigate the allegations, protect those affected and prosecute anyone found culpable.
Leadership Dispute Deepens Market Tension
The controversy also involves a disagreement over the leadership of the market association.
The association’s chairman, Mr. Tochukwu Umeh, attributed the crisis partly to the Anambra State Government’s decision to remove some market leaders. He alleged that some of the affected individuals continued to occupy leadership positions because they maintained that market members had elected them.
According to Umeh, the disagreement has fuelled tensions, allegations of harassment and disruptions to market administration.
Meanwhile, a market patron, Mr. Onyeka Oguejiofor, alleged that some individuals had taken over shops without following due process. He also claimed that recognised traders and leaders faced pressure to leave their positions or premises.
Oguejiofor said some traders had been removed or threatened with eviction without notice. He further alleged that the individuals involved claimed to enjoy police backing and acted as though they would face no consequences.
Previous Complaints & Calls for Resolution
Oguejiofor said the traders had reported the matter to the Anambra State Commissioner of Police and the Police Public Relations Officer. They also sought intervention from the relevant market association.
He claimed that some individuals were arrested and detained for about a week, but that the alleged activities resumed after their release.
Furthermore, he said state officials responsible for trade and commerce reportedly advised the traders to comply with the government’s decision concerning the affected market leaders.
Despite the competing claims surrounding the dispute, the traders said they wanted a peaceful resolution, protection of their rights and a return to normal commercial activities.
They appealed to the police and relevant government authorities to investigate the alleged demolitions, threats, attacks and disputed property transfers.
The allegations could not be independently verified from the account provided. It also contained no response from the police, the accused individuals or other parties whose positions could clarify the claims.
