By Lillian Okenwa
When Gen. Muhammadu Buhari came in as President in 2015, he pledged to reduce the cost of governance and even planned to sell some of the Presidential aircraft. This did not happen.
Rather than sell off some aircraft, a total of N20.42 billion was allocated for presidential jets during the first four years of Muhammadu Buhari’s tenure. This allocation doubled in his second coming —N41 billion. And over the last nine years, more than N90 billion was appropriated.
Then came the N12.7 billion allocated for President Bola Tinubu’s air fleet in the 2023 supplementary budget proposal. N13 billion had been previously approved for the same presidential jets.
Concerns have continued to mount over the choice of the executive arm to fund luxuries while the poor and declining economy crippled citizens. The spiraling inflation has hiked the unemployment rate, left many Nigerians poorer, and increased suicide rate.
Even more bewildering is the recent announcement by the minister of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) Ezenwo Nyesom Wike that about 200 houses in the Nuwalege community of Abuja would be demolished to make way for the expansion of the presidential fleet. Amidst all the woes, not a few have questioned the importance of this demolition to create space for more presidential aircraft.
The villagers have appealed to the minister to provide resettlement housing for their members affected by the demolition.
Although the 2023 Presidential candidate for the Labour Party, Peter Obi, has spoken against the planned demolition describing it as “inconsiderate” given the current economic hardship facing most Nigerians there are other opinions.
Obi in a statement via his X handle said: “I am again pained that we are embarking on such an inconsiderate project at this critical time when the country is going through untold hardship.
“A country where the World Bank announced that over 100 million citizens are being pushed into poverty should not at this time be sending hundreds of people into homelessness to accommodate the Presidential fleet of luxury aircraft.
“We cannot continue to encourage those who have kept us suffering to enjoy a luxurious lifestyle far beyond our legitimate means…”
Stephen Azubuike a Lagos based Lawyer and Partner at Infusion Lawyers, said:” I understand the Nigerian Air Force is behind the proposed demolition and that the area of land occupied by the village forms part of what was referred to as presidential fleet plots. Legally, we’re faced with the issue of land ownership and the possible revocation of title for public interest. The development naturally calls for adequate government compensation and the need to ensure that there are no breach of rights.”
Chief Nkereuwem Udofia Akpan Constitutional Lawyer, and Human Rights Activist in a statement sent to Law & Society Magazine, took the argument further.
On the Proposed Demolition of Villages to Make Way for the Presidential Fleet: Opinion.
“On 3rd February 1976 the Supreme Military Council then the highest decision making organ of the Federal Military Government Nigeria led by late General Muritala Ramat Muhammad promulgated by military fiat Decree No 6 of 1976, carving out the FCT from the old Niger, Kaduna, Plateau and Kwara States. Tragically even before the ink could dry on the paper setting up the enclave, Gen Muritala Muhammad was cut down in a hail of bullets, a mere 10 days later, precisely on the 13th of February 1976 in an attempted Coup. It was not until December 12th, 1991 that the Armed Forces Ruling Council (AFRC) under the regime of former military President Gen Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida that the actual relocation of the seat government from Dodan Barracks in the overcrowded city of Lagos to Abuja actually took place.
“That relocation of the federal capital to Abuja gave rise to the removal, relocation and resettlement of the native inhabitants of the Area pursuant to the aforesaid Decree no 6 of 1976, which in 1990 was styled the FCT establishment Act and deemed an Act of the National Assembly now Cap 128 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria (LFN) 1990.
“It’s interesting to note that as at the time of the creation of the FCT, the Land Use Act 1978 was still two years away.
“Upon coming into effect of Decree no 6 of 1978 which was promulgated on the 29th day of March 1978, the Land Use Act of 1978 , the Supreme Military Council then headed by Gen Olusegun Obasanjo began deliberations on moving the seat of government from Dodan Barracks in Lagos to Abuja FCT
“With the subsequent relocation and resettlement of the residents out of the areas to alternative abodes in neighboring states and payment of compensation, there should not be any villages in the FCT at all unless in areas where the indigenous people were resettled within the FCT itself or were never relocated and or compensated
“By a community reading of . Sections 1, 2, 20, 22, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 and 33 of the Land Use Act LGBT 2004, it seems to me the whole notion of “owners” of FCT is not supported by extant laws and my attention has not been drawn to any judicial authority recognizing such claims.
“A critical perusal of both the Federal Capital Territory establishment Act, LFN 2004 and the Land Use Decree of 1978 will show the extent of the sweeping powers vested in the government over lands.
“Furthermore, and as if that was not enough, the Land Use Act is styled an Existing Law, and deemed to be an Act of the National Assembly by virtue of the extant and sacrosanct provisions of sections 315(1) and 315(5)(d) of the 1999 Constitution. Flowing from the above, text writers and scholars have argued that besides the Land Use Act being cited as an Act of the National Assembly, that it is effectively a part and parcel of the Constitution. The implications being that any proposed amendments to the Land Use Act, must be in line with the stringent conditions and procedures set out in section 9(1)-(4) of the Constitution itself.
“Be that as it may, it seems to me that once the. Government has taken over land (any lands) and fully complied with sections 31, 33 and 35 of the Land Use Act, no reversionary rights or interests may accrue to any person.and or group of persons , whether in the interim or in perpetuity.or at all
“Bear in mind that upon the relocation of the capital of Nigeria to FCT from Lagos in 1991, all the people living in the affected areas were to be compensated or ought to have been compensated for developments on the land and also given alternative places of abode in neighboring states and certain enclaves within the FCT mutatis mutandis.
“The whole idea of people still claiming to be “owners” of FCT, despite having been beneficiaries of resettlement and compensation is illegal under sections 37 and 43 of the Land Use Act itself.
“To understand the rational for these conclusions, I will further humbly recommend to the reader the provisions of sections 1(1), (2) of the Land Use Act Validation of Certain Laws Act cap L6, LFN 2004 promulgated on 28th September 1979 as Decree No 94 of 1979.
“I shall also further recommend sections 1, 2 and 3 of the Land (Title Vesting etc) Act, promulgated on 1st January 1975 deemed as Decree number 53 of 1993.now cap L7, LFN 2004.
“It must be borne in mind that technically the President is the ‘Governor’ of the FCT and he has powers delegated to the Minister under section 5(1)(a) of the 1999 Constitution.
“Again given the recent Supreme Court decision on the status of the FCT and under section 51(2) of the Land Use Act, the Minister of FCT will be deemed to have the same powers as the Governor of a state for the purposes of carrying out the powers and functions vested in the Governor of land under the Land Use Act. So essentially the decision of the Federal Executive Council to embark on the demolition exercise is taken as already approved by the Minister. The only challenge may come from the law courts in appropriate circumstances.
“However , before anyone rushes to court and then shout his or herself hoarse claiming injustice, it’s pertinent to be circumspect and be advised that, judicial attitude has consistently enforced the extant statutory provisions. Speaking from my experience in the course of practice, yours truly have been involved in a slew of such judicial authorities which supports and enforces the aforesaid provisions of extant statutes on each and every of the issues herein raised and canvassed. See for instance judgment in suit no FCT/HC/CV/1127/2006 – Landmark Savings and Loans Ltd v FCDA and 9 Ors delivered on the 12th day of February 2013 by his lordship the honourable Justice Anthony Ugochukwu Ogakwu (now JCA).See also the decision of his Lordship the honourable Justice Salisu Garba in FCT /HC/CV/127/2002 – Usman Bagama and Ors v Alhaji Musa Ijakoro (Emir of Bwari) and Ors.
“In summary it would appear from the above and without prejudice to the rights of citizens to approach the Courts for redress at all times in appropriate instances of violations or non compliance with the law itself, the government can acquire any land within the FCT for overriding pubic use with little or no resistance from anyone in possession whether under any Rights of Occupancy duly granted by the Minister or any preexisting customary right (real or imaginary) that may or may not predate the Land Use Act or the creation of the FCT.
“The only remedy for aggrieved persons or communities may be limited to compensation but there is a catch because having been beneficiaries of earlier programs of resettlement and due compensation, it seems to me that any subsequent claims made by communities or individuals who were already resettled and duly compensated, will be caught up with and or forbidden and penalised under sections 37and 43 of the Land Use Act cap L5, LFN 2004.”
