Wike’s Demolitions And Land Revocations In Abuja: Legal Or Overreach?
The recent demolition of over 100 homes worth over ₦200 billion in Abuja by Nyesom Wike, Minister of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), has sparked significant controversy and debates about the legality of his actions. Critics, including the Home Builders Association of Nigeria (HBAN), have accused Wike of abusing his powers, while others argue that his decisions are rooted in the law.
In November, HBAN alleged that Wike’s administration unlawfully demolished properties in the Sabon Lugbe area of Abuja. Kalu Kalu, a lawyer for the association, stated during a press conference that the developers of the affected properties held valid title documents and had obtained permits from the FCT Development Control Department before construction began.
“We are here today to inform Nigerians and the global community about the alleged misuse of power by the minister in ordering the demolition of these properties,” Kalu said.
The controversy expanded when prominent Niger Delta activist Rita Ogebor accused the Federal Capital Development Authority (FCDA) of threatening to demolish a 42-year-old estate belonging to her late husband, Colonel Paul Ogebor. Valued at ₦3.5 billion, the estate had been in the family since the early days of Abuja’s development.
Central to the debate is the 1978 Land Use Act (LUA), codified in Nigeria’s Laws of the Federation. The Act grants governors — and in the FCT, the minister — significant powers over land administration, including the revocation of certificates of occupancy (C of O) under specific conditions.
– Section 5 of the LUA assigns the administration of land to state governors or the FCT minister.
– Section 28 permits revocation of a C of O for public purposes, such as infrastructure development, or if the land is not used for its approved purpose.
– Non-payment of ground rent or fees tied to the land is also a legitimate ground for revocation.
Wike’s Special Assistant on Communications, Lere Olayinka, defended one such revocation involving Paulosa Nigeria Limited. He explained that the company failed to meet the conditions for converting a temporary right of occupancy to a statutory right, including paying arrears of ground rent and other fees.
“Paulosa Nigeria Limited refused to comply with the terms and conditions for approval for 20 months,” Olayinka said in a statement, emphasizing that Wike’s actions align with the LUA.
Despite the legal backing, critics argue that Wike’s demolitions and revocations lack transparency and due process. Social media platforms have been abuzz with discussions, with many questioning whether the minister has adequately explored alternatives before resorting to demolition.
Activists and property owners are calling for more accountability, urging the government to ensure that decisions are not arbitrary and that affected parties are given fair notice and compensation where applicable.
While the LUA grants extensive powers to the FCT minister, the execution of these powers is where the contention lies. Legal experts stress that adherence to due process and balancing public interest with individual rights are crucial to maintaining trust in governance.
As the debate continues, Wike’s actions have ignited a broader conversation about urban planning, governance, and property rights in Nigeria’s capital city.
SOURCE: FIJ
