The Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Nyesom Wike, has fired back at Channels Television over its criticism of land allocations to newly appointed ambassadors, accusing the media organisation of hypocrisy for questioning the policy while itself occupying land allocated by the same FCT administration and making money from it, telling the broadcaster that “when you live in a glass house, don’t throw stones.”
Wike’s remarks came in response to a rebuttal by Channels Television on Thursday in which the broadcaster denied profiting from land allocated to it in Abuja’s Guzape district and challenged the minister to publish the names of journalists allotted land in the FCT.
Rather than backing down, Wike escalated the confrontation, naming both Channels Television and AIT as media organisations that received FCT land allocations, arguing that media houses are businesses that derive revenue from operations conducted on government-allocated land, and challenging the media’s standing to question allocations to ambassadors when they themselves are beneficiaries of the same policy.
Wike was blunt in his characterisation of media organisations as commercial enterprises.
“Media organisations are not set up for charity; they are for business,” Wike stated. “They do adverts and collect money. Apart from payments for adverts and live coverage, there is commercial news on which money is paid.”
“This is how they make money to fund their operations and pay staff salaries. Why then should we hide this obvious fact?” the minister added.
He argued that land allocated to media houses forms part of the assets that support their operations and revenue: “So if the government allocated land — not sell, because in the FCT, government doesn’t sell lands — to a media organisation to build structures where it runs its business, is the organisation not making money from the land?”
The minister’s sharpest barb was directed at Channels Television’s framing of the ambassador allocations as a “misplaced priority” that neglected poor Nigerians.
“Journalists were asking questions that we gave land to ambassador designates. Now, we don’t talk about the ordinary people. They said this is a misplaced priority, giving that land to people who are not supposed to have land,” Wike recounted.
He then turned the argument on the questioners: “I said one of the major beneficiaries was Channels. Government allocated land to you. You carry on business in that land that was allocated to you and you are making money.”
“You were given land. Are you one of the poor? You are not one of the poor. So why are you complaining now?” Wike asked.
He extended the criticism to AIT: “I also said AIT, you were also allocated land. See where you are. You are carrying out your business activities. So I don’t know what is wrong.”
Wike invoked the proverb about glass houses to summarise his position on the media’s criticism.
“I will always stand by the truth and I will say the truth. Yes, people may not be happy,” Wike stated.
“When you live in a glass house, don’t throw stones. Because so many things people talk about,” the minister added.
He questioned the framing of “poor people” as the intended beneficiaries: “When you are featuring the same poor people, who are poor people? How do you quantify poor people? All these your presenters, are they also rich people?”
“People should be very careful in what they say,” Wike warned.
Wike clarified the distinction between land allocation and land purchase in the FCT, pushing back on the characterisation that media houses or ambassadors were given free assets.
“Nobody buys land from us. When the land is allocated, you pay a processing fee to get your Certificate of Occupancy. So what I’m trying to say is, fees were paid. Nobody bought land. When you allocate land, you pay processing fees for your C of O,” Wike explained.
“And every year, just like anybody, we also pay the same thing. That you have allocated land to government does not mean that you will not pay for processing of the C of O,” the minister added.
He framed the policy as consistent regardless of the beneficiary: “Government allocating land to a media organisation is the same thing as government allocating land to an ambassador designate.”
Wike addressed the suggestion that he was personally responsible for the allocations to media houses, noting that the allocations predated his tenure as FCT Minister.
“When they say it was given in 2007, government is a continuum. People will also say that FCT allocated land to your media organisation. I didn’t say it was in my time. No, it’s the same FCT,” Wike stated.
“Even if another minister comes tomorrow, he will say these people were allocated land. It has nothing to do with the personnel that gave the land. I did not say I gave. I said I am in authority to know that lands were allocated,” the minister clarified.
The distinction is important: Wike is not claiming credit for allocating land to the media houses, nor accusing his predecessors of wrongdoing. His argument is that the FCT has a long-standing practice of allocating land to various entities, including media organisations, and that those organisations cannot credibly criticise the same practice when it benefits others.
Channels Television had earlier rejected Wike’s claims, denying that it profited from the land allocation in Guzape and challenging the minister to publish the names of journalists who received land in the FCT.
The broadcaster’s rebuttal was framed as a call for transparency and a defence against what it considered an attempt to deflect from the substantive question of whether allocating land to ambassadors was a responsible use of public resources in a city where many residents lack affordable housing.
However, Wike’s response effectively turned the transparency argument back on the broadcaster: if Channels Television wants the minister to publish names of journalist beneficiaries, the minister is equally entitled to point out that Channels itself is among the beneficiaries of FCT land allocations.
Wike defended the broader policy of land allocation in the FCT as open to all Nigerians.
“Every Nigerian who is interested, who wants to do business, we will give them land to do so,” Wike stated, framing the ambassador allocations as part of a universal policy rather than preferential treatment.
“If allocation of land to you is right, why should it be wrong when others get it?” Wike added, arguing that the policy is equitable regardless of the beneficiary’s status.
The land allocation controversy comes at a time when Wike’s tenure as FCT Minister has been marked by aggressive infrastructure development, high-profile demolitions of illegal structures, and an assertive public persona that has frequently put him at odds with media organisations, civil society groups, and political opponents.
His willingness to publicly name media organisations as beneficiaries of government land allocations, and to challenge their standing to criticise similar allocations to others, reflects a combative approach to public discourse that has defined his political career from his days as Rivers State Governor through his current role as FCT Minister.
For the media organisations named, the minister’s public disclosure creates a reputational challenge: how to report critically on government land allocation policies when they themselves are beneficiaries of the same policies, and how to maintain editorial independence when a powerful government official is publicly questioning their credibility on the basis of their own receipt of government resources.
As Wike stated: “I will always stand by the truth and I will say the truth. Yes, people may not be happy.”
