The Nigerian government has vowed to resolve tensions with several foreign embassies accused of owing billions in unpaid ground rent, opting to handle the matter through diplomatic engagement rather than confrontation.

On Sunday, spokesperson for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Kimiebi Ebienfa, confirmed that discussions would take place with the Federal Capital Territory Administration (FCTA) to find an amicable solution.

“The ministry will collaborate with the FCTA, and the issue will be addressed through diplomatic channels,” Ebienfa stated during a press interview.

Background: What Triggered the Dispute?

This development follows a recent threat by the FCTA to seal 34 embassies in Abuja over outstanding rent payments dating as far back as 2014. According to an official circular, these diplomatic missions collectively owe over ₦3.6 billion in unpaid annual ground rent.

The crackdown stems from a broader directive issued by FCT Minister Nyesom Wike, who ordered the enforcement of rent payments across approximately 4,800 properties in the territory. This sweeping action aimed to address chronic revenue losses from land charges.

However, following public concern and diplomatic sensitivity, President Bola Tinubu intervened, urging a two-week grace period for all defaulters—including embassies and international organizations—to settle their debts or face consequences.

In addition to the backlog, the FCTA also imposed penalty fees ranging between ₦2 million and ₦3 million, based on each property’s location. The Director of Lands at the FCTA, Chijioke Nwankwoeze, disclosed these figures, reinforcing the administration’s resolve to boost revenue through compliance.

 Which Embassies Are Allegedly in Default?

The FCTA published a detailed list naming the embassies and commissions involved, along with the alleged amounts owed. Here are some examples:

• Ghana High Commission Defence Section – ₦5,950

• Embassy of Thailand – ₦5,350

• Embassy of Côte d’Ivoire – ₦5,500

• Russian Federation Embassy – ₦1,100

• Philippines Embassy – ₦5,950

• Royal Netherlands Embassy – ₦5,950

• Embassy of Turkey – ₦3,350

• Republic of Guinea Embassy – ₦5,950

• Embassy of Ireland – ₦500

• Uganda Embassy – ₦5,950

• Embassy of Iraq – ₦550

• Zambian High Commission – ₦1,189,990

Additional embassies on the list include:

• Tanzania High Commission – ₦6,000

• German Embassy – ₦1,000

• Embassy of the Democratic Republic of Congo – ₦5,950

• Embassy of Venezuela – ₦459,055

• South Korean Embassy – ₦5,950

• Trinidad and Tobago High Commission – ₦500

• Egyptian Embassy – ₦5,950

• Chadian Embassy – ₦5,950

• Sierra Leone Commission – ₦5,900

• Indian High Commission – ₦150

• Sudanese Embassy – ₦5,950

• Niger Republic Embassy – ₦500

• Kenya High Commission – ₦5,950

• Zimbabwean Embassy – ₦500

• Ethiopian Embassy – ₦5,950

• Indonesia (Defence Attaché) – ₦1,718,211

• Delegation of the European Union – ₦1,500

• Swiss Embassy – ₦5,950

• Saudi Arabian Royal Embassy – ₦5,950

• Chinese Economic and Commercial Counselor’s Office – ₦12,000

• South African High Commission – ₦4,950

• Equatorial Guinea Government – ₦1,137,240

Diplomatic Pushback: Missions Reject the Claims

While the FCTA insists on enforcement, many of the embassies named on the list have denied owing any money, questioning the accuracy and validity of the claims.

The Russian Embassy outright dismissed the allegation, stating that its financial records show no outstanding rent. Similarly, the Turkish Embassy suggested a possible administrative error, arguing that their inclusion could have resulted from outdated documentation.

The German Embassy expressed surprise over its appearance on the list, noting that it had never received an official notice or payment demand from the Nigerian government.

Meanwhile, the Embassy of the Democratic Republic of Congo publicly declared that it had already cleared all land-related payments and assured that their operations were proceeding without disruption.

The Ghana High Commission, also mentioned in the notice, acknowledged the published list but emphasized that it had not been formally notified. The Commission pledged to work with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to clarify and resolve any misunderstandings.

A Delicate Balance Between Law and Diplomacy

The ongoing standoff has placed Nigeria in a tight spot. On the one hand, the government seeks to enforce long-overdue payments to bolster revenue. On the other hand, it must avoid diplomatic fallout with nations whose missions operate on Nigerian soil.

In light of this, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has stepped in to ensure that all discussions with foreign governments occur through appropriate diplomatic frameworks rather than public shaming or aggressive enforcement.

Observers say that the situation highlights the need for better communication and coordination between the FCTA and embassies. Many diplomatic missions operate under different property agreements—some on rented land, others through long-term leases or exchange treaties—which can create confusion in billing and record-keeping.

 What Happens Next?

With a two-week deadline ticking, foreign missions will likely begin engaging the Ministry of Foreign Affairs directly to verify claims, review documentation, and resolve discrepancies.

If some embassies fail to respond or negotiate within the timeline, the FCTA could move forward with sealing or sanctioning their properties. However, such a move would be highly unusual and diplomatically sensitive, potentially sparking protests from international partners.

To prevent further tension, diplomatic observers have advised the Nigerian government to update its land records, adopt a transparent invoicing system, and establish a designated liaison office for embassy-related land matters within the FCTA.

Final Thoughts: Diplomatic Tensions or Bureaucratic Glitch?

The dispute over unpaid ground rent has exposed gaps in Nigeria’s land administration and diplomatic coordination. While the FCTA seeks compliance with statutory land fees, foreign missions expect formal engagement and clarity before taking action.

Resolving the issue quickly—and respectfully—will be critical in maintaining Nigeria’s image as a hospitable and law-abiding host for diplomatic missions. Both sides now face a test of diplomacy, record accuracy, and bureaucratic transparency.