A Nigerian-led faction of JonahCapital Nigeria Limited has asked the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission to investigate an alleged $300 million investment in River Park Estate, Abuja, escalating a long-running ownership dispute into a potentially consequential examination of capital flows, corporate authority and international arbitration.
The faction, led by the company’s founder and director, Dr Adeniran Ogunmuyiwa, disputes a claim attributed to Mr Samuel Jonah that infrastructure worth approximately $300 million was financed at the estate.
In a petition dated August 10 and received by the EFCC on August 11, Ogunmuyiwa urged the anti-graft agency to establish whether the money entered Nigeria and whether it was applied to the development of the project.
The allegations remain claims presented by one side in a contested commercial and corporate dispute. They have not been established as findings by the EFCC or a court, and the source material reviewed for this report contained no response from Jonah or Mr Kojo Mensah to the latest petition.
A demand for a forensic capital trail
Ogunmuyiwa’s central argument is straightforward: an investment of $300 million should leave a substantial and verifiable documentary footprint.
The petition asks the EFCC to examine Certificates of Capital Importation, foreign inward-remittance records, bank statements, Central Bank of Nigeria documentation, foreign-exchange transactions, investment agreements, audited financial statements and payment records.
It also seeks evidence of expenditure on the acquisition, development or financing of River Park Estate, including payments to contractors, suppliers and other project participants.
Such documents would not necessarily settle every ownership question, but collectively they could establish whether capital was injected, by whom, through which channels and for what purpose.
A Certificate of Capital Importation is especially relevant where foreign equity or loan capital is brought into Nigeria through the official banking system. However, its absence alone may not conclusively prove that no economic contribution occurred. Project value can also arise through locally sourced financing, shareholder advances, reinvested earnings, equipment, technical services or contractual obligations.
The proper test is therefore broader: can the asserted investment be reconstructed from reliable banking, corporate, tax, contractual and project-delivery records?
From development lease to international arbitration
The dispute centres on Plot 4, Cadastral Zone E30, Lugbe West, Abuja, which JonahCapital Nigeria Limited acquired through a Development Lease Agreement in 2007.
The Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Nyesom Wike, recently confirmed that Nigeria had been taken before the International Chamber of Commerce in France over the property.
Following the termination of the lease agreement last year, the Ghanaian-led faction commenced arbitration against the Federal Capital Development Authority, maintaining that the agreement remained valid until 2030.
Ogunmuyiwa described the arbitration as an attempt to secure substantial compensation for investments which, he alleges, were never made. That characterisation remains disputed and will require evidence before the relevant authorities and arbitral tribunal.
This distinction is important. The ICC proceedings are expected to examine contractual rights, obligations and potential liability arising from the development lease. An EFCC investigation would instead focus on whether financial representations, documents or transactions disclose possible criminal wrongdoing.
Neither process should be substituted for the other.
Ownership claims deepen the controversy
In a separate Letter of Disavowal sent to the FCT Minister, Ogunmuyiwa maintained that JonahCapital did not finance the infrastructure at River Park Estate and that the parties advancing the international claim lacked authority to act for the company.
He alleged that alterations to the company’s ownership records occurred between 2024 and 2026 and claimed that documents were manipulated in February 2024 to support a takeover of JonahCapital.
According to his account, Jonah was admitted as a shareholder in 2007 on the understanding that he would contribute capital, but was removed in 2008 after allegedly failing to do so. Ogunmuyiwa further contends that Jonah was never appointed a director and therefore lacked authority to represent himself as one.
The petitioner asserts that infrastructure at River Park was financed by Paulo Homes Limited under an agreement with JonahCapital, with the Nigerian developer committing billions of naira to the project.
He has asked the EFCC to investigate Mensah’s role, his relationship with Jonah and the authenticity of documents reportedly presented in the arbitration.
These are serious allegations. They demand forensic examination rather than determination through competing press statements.
Market and investor implications
The dispute exposes structural risks in Nigerian real estate investment: unclear beneficial ownership, unstable corporate records, contested development rights and weak alignment between land documentation, project finance and infrastructure delivery.
For investors, the lesson is that land title alone is insufficient. Due diligence must also establish the authority of directors, the history of share transfers, the source of project capital, the enforceability of development agreements and the circumstances under which government leases may be terminated.
The arbitration also creates potential public-finance exposure. If the claim succeeds, the cost could ultimately extend beyond the disputing companies to the Nigerian state. If it fails because the investment history cannot be substantiated, the episode may still impose legal costs and reputational damage.
Homeowners and purchasers within River Park Estate are another critical constituency. Prolonged uncertainty can depress property values, delay approvals and complicate resale, financing and title regularisation. Their interests should not become collateral damage in a shareholder or concession dispute.
Brand implications
River Park is not merely a parcel of contested land; it is a residential brand whose value rests on security of title, governance and buyer confidence.
The controversy also affects Abuja’s investment brand and Nigeria’s wider reputation as a destination for foreign capital. Genuine investors require protection from arbitrary interference, while the state must be able to challenge unsupported financial claims without appearing hostile to foreign enterprise.
Institutional credibility will depend on a transparent, evidence-led process that avoids both xenophobic framing and regulatory capture.
BRANDECONOMY Insight
The $300 million question should not be answered through nationality, influence or media volume. It should be answered through an independently verified capital trail.
The EFCC should establish a multidisciplinary forensic team covering banking, foreign exchange, corporate records, project valuation and construction payments. Its work should be carefully separated from the ICC arbitration while relevant findings are lawfully preserved for Nigeria’s defence.
The FCT Administration should simultaneously create a protected disclosure framework for homeowners, publish the uncontested status of developed portions and prevent disputed corporate claims from destabilising innocent property interests.
At this scale, documentation is destiny. If $300 million was invested, the evidence should survive scrutiny. If it was not, no corporate history should be manufactured to replace it.
