Ivory Coast: confusion surrounding a forced eviction in Abidjan

The controversy over evictions in Abidjan has taken on a new judicial dimension. Following two demolition operations carried out in early June 2026, one in Vridi 3 in the Port-Bouët municipality and the other in the Campement neighborhood of Koumassi, the public prosecutor of the Abidjan Court of First Instance, Oumar Braman Koné, has come out of his reserve.

In a statement released on June 10, 2026, the head of the prosecutor’s office formally denied the existence of any judicial decision authorizing the demolitions carried out in Koumassi. He announced the opening of a criminal investigation and the issuance of a search warrant against Alloui Brou Jacques, presented as the initiator of the operation.

This statement marks a turning point in a case that has become emblematic of the tensions surrounding land ownership, urban governance, and the use of force in eviction operations in Abidjan.

Two demolitions in two days

Events accelerated between June 2 and 3, 2026. On Tuesday, June 2, the machinery of the Autonomous District of Abidjan intervened in Vridi 3, in the Zimbabwe neighborhood, in Port-Bouët. This area, which is home to several tens of thousands of inhabitants, had been threatened with eviction for several years.

For the District authorities, the operation was part of the urban sanitation policy and risk prevention. They cite unsanitary conditions, chaotic installations, flooding risks, and the need to protect populations, especially during heavy rain periods.

But on the ground, the contestation was strong. Residents claim they received no formal notification and decry an operation conducted in a particularly difficult context, in the midst of school exams and the onset of the rainy season. Several families found themselves homeless, amid the rubble, without any immediate relocation solution.

The Port-Bouët municipality also expressed its reservations. It denounced a unilateral action by the Autonomous District’s services, carried out without sufficient consultation with the municipal authorities. This distancing has reinforced the impression of a deep institutional malaise surrounding eviction operations.

The following day, Wednesday, June 3, another demolition took place in Koumassi, in the Houphouët-Boigny area, commonly known as Campement. This time, the operation was not presented as an initiative of the District or the municipality but as a private procedure conducted in the name of Alloui Brou Jacques, a retired telecommunications engineer and former municipal elected official.

Koumassi Campement, the file that changes the case

In Koumassi, the demolitions quickly sparked outrage. Houses were razed over a vast area, leaving families homeless. Residents claim to have lived on the site for several decades. Some say they received no prior notification before the machinery arrived.

In the face of public anger, the Koumassi municipality, led by Narcisse Toussaint Balley, quickly distanced itself from the operation. It indicated that this was not a municipal action but a private procedure. According to initial reports, Alloui Brou Jacques had presented legal documents to justify the intervention.

The Minister of National Cohesion, Solidarity, and the Fight Against Poverty, Myss Belmonde Dogo, also visited the victims. She urged the initiator of the operation to halt it and reminded that the government was not responsible for this demolition.

But it is the public prosecutor’s statement that has given the case its true significance. According to Oumar Braman Koné, the judicial decision invoked by Alloui Brou Jacques did not authorize any demolition of constructions. The prosecutor’s office also states that the request for demolition made by the individual had been rejected by the court.

Moreover, the initial request only concerned five houses. However, the demolitions affected a much larger area. For the prosecutor’s office, this disproportion raises serious questions about how the judicial documents were used and under what conditions the operation could have been carried out.

The prosecutor opens a criminal investigation

In his statement, the public prosecutor did not just provide an administrative clarification. He criminally qualified the facts. The offenses mentioned include disturbances of public order, physical attacks, and the willful destruction of property belonging to others.

A search warrant has been issued against Alloui Brou Jacques, who is said to be untraceable. This situation raises new questions. How could a private actor conduct a demolition operation of such magnitude with machinery and, according to reports, the presence of law enforcement, if the invoked judicial decision did not authorize it?

This question is at the heart of the announced investigation. It concerns not only the responsibility of the alleged initiator but also any complicity or institutional failures that may have allowed the operation to take place.

The presence of law enforcement, if confirmed as reported, poses a major problem. It implies that documents were presented, interpreted, or accepted as a legal basis for the intervention. However, the prosecutor’s office now states that this basis did not allow for the demolitions to proceed.

This Koumassi case thus goes beyond a simple land dispute. It raises questions about the control of judicial decisions, their execution, the verification of titles, and the responsibility of the authorities involved in on-the-ground operations.

An ancient land crisis

The events of June 2026 reveal a deeper crisis. In Abidjan, land pressure is high, property titles are often contested, and several popular neighborhoods find themselves at the crossroads of customary rights, administrative documents, long-standing occupations, and economic projects.

In the case of Koumassi Campement, Alloui Brou Jacques claims rights over a significant area. However, the conditions of acquisition or confirmation of these rights raise questions, especially since the individual is presented as a former municipal official responsible for land matters.

This situation fuels suspicions of conflicts of interest and confusion between old public functions, private interests, and land claims. For residents, the question is simple: how can families that have been settled for decades be violently evicted without a relocation solution and without a clearly understood process?

In both Vridi 3 and Koumassi, the same concern prevails. The populations do not always dispute the necessity of sanitizing or reorganizing the city, but they condemn the method: lack of consultation, failure to notify, absence of transparent census, lack of relocation, and use of force.

Urban policy under tension since 2024

The current controversy is part of a longer sequence. Since 2024, the Autonomous District of Abidjan has been pursuing an eviction policy presented as necessary for the safety of populations and the modernization of the city.

After taking office as the minister-governor of the Autonomous District of Abidjan, Ibrahim Cissé Bacongo initiated a series of operations targeting sites considered at risk. The authorities have identified several areas exposed to flooding, landslides, or building collapses.

Neighborhoods such as Boribana, Banco 1, Colombie, Gesco, and Abattoir have been subject to demolitions. The District defends a logic of sanitation and protection of human lives. However, human rights organizations, local elected officials, and affected populations regularly denounce operations conducted without sufficient guarantees.

In 2024, national and international pressure led to the announcement of a suspension of evictions in the Abidjan District, except in cases of imminent risk. However, this suspension has not ended the controversies. The operations of June 2026 show that the issue remains unresolved.

The humanitarian shock

Behind the legal and political debates, there are families. In Koumassi Campement, several households have been urgently housed in a primary school. In Vridi 3, residents found themselves amid the ruins, with no immediate solution.

The timing chosen for the demolitions exacerbates the trauma. The operations occurred during exam periods and the beginning of the rainy season. Children had their education disrupted. Families lost their belongings, their documents, their businesses, or their means of subsistence.

This humanitarian dimension weighs heavily in the debate. For the victims, the question is not just whether the lands were regular or not. It is also about whether the state, local authorities, or private actors can violently displace populations without a social plan, without reasonable timeframes, and without support.

The concerned municipalities have tried to respond urgently, particularly in Koumassi, where a crisis cell has been established. However, these responses remain limited in the face of the scale of the losses suffered.

A case with significant political implications

Evictions have become a politically sensitive topic in Côte d’Ivoire. As the next elections approach, they feed criticisms against urban governance, land management, and the place accorded to vulnerable populations in the transformation of Abidjan.

Opponents denounce a brutal policy, conducted in the name of modernization but at the expense of the poorest residents. The authorities, on the other hand, emphasize the need to prevent disasters, to fight against the chaotic occupation of public land, and to make Abidjan safer and more modern.

The Koumassi case adds an explosive element to this debate. If a private operation could be carried out under the guise of a judicial decision that did not authorize the demolitions, then the crisis goes beyond the District’s sanitation policy. It becomes a crisis of confidence in the mechanisms of state control.

The prosecutor has taken a strong action by opening an investigation and issuing a search warrant. However, public opinion now expects concrete outcomes. Identifying responsibilities, seeking any complicities, and providing support to the victims will be critical.

Justice under the test of credibility

Oumar Braman Koné’s statement had an immediate effect: it disavowed the judicial justification put forward in the Koumassi case and reminded that property rights do not automatically grant the right to demolish homes.

This distinction is essential. In a rule of law, the forced execution of a judicial decision adheres to strict rules. It cannot be unilaterally expanded or transformed into a mass destruction operation without a clear legal basis.

Thus, the prosecutor’s reaction is an important signal. However, it comes after the facts. The houses are already destroyed, families displaced, and the material and moral damages already incurred.

How the investigation proceeds will determine whether this case remains merely a judicial clarification or leads to a genuine re-evaluation of eviction practices in Abidjan. The challenge is twofold: to sanction any potential abuses and to prevent them from happening again.

For the residents of Koumassi Campement and Vridi 3, the urgency remains immediate: to find shelter, protect the children, recover what can be salvaged, and obtain reparations if faults are established. For the Ivorian authorities, the stakes are larger. They need to demonstrate that the urban transformation of Abidjan cannot occur in a climate of legal confusion, social distress, or at the expense of citizen trust.