While ownership of Plot 4022 remains before the courts and Rebecca has not been convicted of any offence, Colleen’s side continues to deploy petitions, lawyers, government agencies and damaging publications against a woman reportedly trapped inside the disputed property without basic utilities.
A recent publication presents Colleen Mero Yesufu as a helpless victim and Rebecca Omokamo Godwin-Isaac as though she has already been found guilty.
But Nigerians must ask a fundamental question:
Who is truly exercising power over whom?
Colleen’s side has reportedly petitioned the Presidency, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, the Nigeria Police Force, the Federal Capital Territory Administration, the Nigeria Immigration Service and several other government institutions.
Her representatives have engaged multiple lawyers and organisations, held press briefings and repeatedly circulated serious allegations against Rebecca. The recent publication itself referred to more than 50 letters allegedly written between 2023 and 2026 in support of Colleen’s position.
That is not the profile of a person without access, influence or institutional support. It reveals the scale of the machinery being deployed against Rebecca.
Meanwhile, Rebecca remains a defendant who has pleaded not guilty and has not been convicted by any court.
A Headline Is Not a Court Judgment
The recent publication repeatedly describes Rebecca as though every allegation against her has been conclusively established. It portrays disputed documents as proven forgeries and presents accusations involving police officers, judges and government officials as settled facts.
That is trial by media.
A criminal charge is an allegation, not a conviction. The courts must determine whether any document was forged, whether any offence occurred and who lawfully owns Plot 4022.
Rebecca maintains that she purchased the property through a chain of transactions, paid substantial consideration, took possession, cleared the land, developed it and made it her residence. Colleen challenges that claim.
The existence of two competing claims is precisely why neither side should be declared the lawful owner through petitions, headlines or enforcement pressure.
The Real Objective Has Been Exposed
One of the most revealing claims in the publication was that the EFCC’s seizure of Plot 4022 had effectively restored a fortune to Colleen and her family.
That statement exposes the central problem.
Was the EFCC acting neutrally to preserve disputed property pending judicial determination, or was its intervention being treated as a means of giving one private claimant practical possession and advantage?
An interim forfeiture or preservation proceeding is not a final judgment awarding the land to Colleen. Yet the operation has been celebrated as though she has already won the property.
That is one side’s desired outcome being presented as justice before the courts have finally determined ownership.
The Court Order That Cannot Be Ignored
On 3 July 2026, the Federal High Court ordered that status quo ante bellum be maintained pending further proceedings.
Before the EFCC operation commenced on 29 June 2026, Rebecca was residing at the property. She had access to water, electricity, cooking gas, her family and her lawyers. EFCC operatives were not stationed inside or around her home.
Rebecca’s family says that following the operation, water, electricity and cooking gas were disconnected, while access to her husband, lawyers and supplies became severely restricted.
Her husband was reportedly allowed only a few minutes to deliver food and power banks after almost two weeks of public pressure.
How can such conditions represent the restoration of the position that existed before the dispute?
A court order must be obeyed according to its substance, not selectively interpreted to preserve an advantage created after an enforcement operation.
When a Land Claim Becomes Human Punishment
Colleen is entitled to pursue her case.
She may present her title documents, challenge Rebecca’s documents and ask the courts to declare her the lawful owner.
But she is not entitled to obtain through institutional pressure, media condemnation or enforcement action what has not yet been finally awarded by a court.
A land dispute cannot justify leaving another woman without water, electricity, cooking gas, normal access to her family or unrestricted access to legal representation.
A forfeiture proceeding cannot become punishment before conviction.
Age, widowhood and emotional appeals may attract public sympathy, but they do not determine legal ownership. Sympathy is not a certificate of title, and repetition does not transform an allegation into a fact.
At present, Rebecca is the woman being publicly branded a criminal before judgment. She is the person whose residence has been occupied by state operatives. She is the person reportedly left without essential utilities and subjected to restricted access.
Yet the public is repeatedly told that only Colleen can be regarded as the victim.
Let the Courts Decide
Rebecca Omokamo Godwin-Isaac is not asking to be placed above the law.
She is asking for the law to be applied equally.
Let the prosecution present its evidence.
Let Rebecca defend herself.
Let Colleen prove her title.
Let the courts determine whether the documents relied upon by either side are genuine and who lawfully owns Plot 4022.
But repeated petitions, institutional pressure, damaging publications and dehumanising accusations must not replace judicial determination.
When one private claimant’s campaign is followed by the mobilisation of multiple state institutions, repeated public attacks, the seizure of disputed property and the reported deprivation of another woman’s basic necessities, Nigerians are entitled to ask:
Who is truly being protected, and who is truly being oppressed?
The answer must come from evidence and a lawful judgment.
Not from propaganda.
Not from anonymous accusations.
Not from hunger, darkness or institutional force.
Restore Rebecca’s basic rights. Respect the Federal High Court’s order. End the trial by media. Let the courts determine the lawful owner of Plot 4022.
