Explainer: Nine Misleading Claims Fueling Makoko Demolition Narrative
February 2, 2026
The recent demolition of some waterfront structures in Makoko, Lagos, has sparked intense public emotion and a wave of viral claims across social media. However, fact-checks show that many of the dominant narratives surrounding the exercise are either exaggerated or misleading.
Below is a fact-based explainer addressing nine of the most common claims about the Makoko demolition and what available evidence indicates.
1. “Makoko was completely demolished”
This claim is false. Multiple verifications confirm that only structures located directly beneath high-tension power lines and those encroaching toward the Third Mainland Bridge were removed. Disputes over whether a 30-metre or 100-metre buffer was agreed upon reflect the limited scope of the exercise. Makoko as a community remains largely intact.
2. “Residents were evicted overnight without warning”
Government officials maintain that notices were issued over an extended period, especially to occupants of structures identified as unsafe or illegally built on waterways. Lagos State Governor Babajide Sanwo-Olu disclosed that the operation, originally planned for December 2024, was repeatedly postponed and extended throughout 2025 to allow for voluntary compliance. Other accounts indicate that warnings predated the current administration.
3. “No compensation or resettlement was planned”
Under existing laws, structures erected illegally on state-owned waterways do not qualify for compensation. However, Governor Sanwo-Olu announced that, on compassionate grounds, affected residents would receive palliatives and relocation stipends. He said relevant ministries and local governments had been directed to provide additional support to ease the impact on displaced residents.
4. “The demolition targeted the poor”
Available data contradict this narrative. Authorities point out that similar enforcement actions have taken place in both low- and high-income areas when planning regulations were violated. Records show that illegal structures were also removed in upscale neighbourhoods such as Ikeja GRA and parts of Ikoyi and Banana Island in the first quarter of 2025.
5. “Makoko residents legally own the land and water”
The state disputes this claim, citing constitutional provisions. Under Section 44 of the 1999 Constitution and the Land Use Act of 1978, all land in Lagos, including lagoons and waterways, is vested in the governor in trust for the public. Authorities argue that the demolished structures lacked legal titles or planning approvals, making them subject to removal under Lagos State urban planning laws.
6. “The governor personally ordered the demolition”
Officials say the exercise was carried out by relevant agencies in line with standing urban planning, environmental and safety regulations, rather than by a personal directive from the governor. Sanwo-Olu stated that the action was taken in the collective interest of public safety and not for any ulterior motive.
7. “There was no safety or environmental reason”
Experts describe Makoko as a dense waterfront settlement with serious safety risks. Authorities cite high-tension power lines running through closely packed wooden structures as a major hazard, noting that a single fault could lead to widespread fires, flooding, power outages and loss of life. Other concerns include blocked waterways, pollution and security risks.
8. “Children were abandoned with no support”
The government has rejected this claim, arguing that some viral images circulating online lack context. Officials have accused certain groups of exploiting images of children to attract donor funds. Sanwo-Olu insisted that the state was not intent on depriving residents of support but aimed to improve overall safety and living conditions.
9. “The land is being cleared for luxury development”
The state government has denied approving any private development on the cleared areas, describing them instead as buffer zones reserved for environmental protection and maritime safety. Authorities have also accused some local and international NGOs of misrepresenting Makoko’s situation for financial gain.
End note
While the demolition has caused undeniable hardship for affected residents, the government argues that much of the public debate has been driven by emotion rather than facts, often overlooking legal, environmental and safety considerations surrounding the exercise.