The Abuja Mater plan is a legal document, because its production was predicated upon the provision of the FCT Act. Therefore, allocation on any land within the FCT must comply with the land use plan as determined by the Master plan. On the other hand, any allocation done in violation of the land use plan is a violation of the FCT Act, which in essence is a contravention of the law.
The Abuja Masterplan is not a hidden, but a public document, and has been commercialized by the Authority. It is being sold to the members of the public, in order to spread the knowledge of the Abuja development program. This is aimed at preventing the violation of any of its provision. Clearly, all developments that are contrary to the land uses are well-known by the culprits and are dangerous investment risks. More so, if there are a lot of public outcries. The developers may feign ignorance, but ignorance of the law is never an excuse.
Section 3 and 4 of the FCT Act, provides for the establishment, function and powers of the Federal Capital Development Authority (FCDA). The Authority is charged with the responsibility of the choice of site for the location of the capital city within the FCT; the preparation of a master-plan for the capital city and of land use with respect to town and country planning within the rest of the Territory; the provision of municipal services within the FCT and the establishment of infrastructural services in accordance with the master-plan among others.
The plan was prepared in strict compliance with the development guidelines FCDA provided the International Planning Associates (IPA). Due diligence was undertaken by the FCDA in the plan production and subsequent implementation. It was not only the FCDA staff, the modus operandi involved input of prominent Nigerian professionals and statesmen, in order to ensure the domestication of the plan andsuccess of the assignment within the stipulated period. A list of 11 FCDA Board Members, 27 Members Technical Assessment Panel constituted by the FCDA, and 4 Members International Review Panel were named and acknowledged by the IPA in the Report.
The Urban and Regional Planning (URP) Department was mandated with the custodianship of the Masterplan in order to ensure that the land use plan according to the masterplan is respected during the allocation process. The Department of Lands can make allocation only when the URP is satisfied with the proposal based on the land use requirement. Any allocation by any of the sister Departments in the FCT Administration made without the input of the URP Department is a violation of the official procedure. Such allocations that are devoid of the established processes of check and balance are the trademarks of land use or masterplan violations.
A land use budget was arrived at by the masterplan as a means of achieving the enshrined objectives. This is the manifestation of the principles and philosophy of the plan. All these vision were factored in the Abuja Master plan, and subsequently translated to the City land use plan for implementation. However, almost all the components are now being violated.
The Garden City Concept was to be achieved with 33 per cent of the land budget allocated for greening. Unfortunately, the buffer zones flanking the streams across the City which were factored within the 33 percent, are now reduced to narrow waterways, only wide enough for the flow of the stream at the moment, not minding the catastrophic runoffs due to torrential rainfalls.
Earlier, we made presentation on the principle and philosophy of the Abuja Masterplan. Out of the ones enumerated, five had to deal with environmental issues. The new capital was expected to conserve as much as possible the natural and cultural environment of the territory. It was also to foster standards of settlement development appropriate not only to the current Nigerian culture and environment, but also to the needs and aspirations of future generations of Nigerians.
A building project can commence now, but may not be completed until the following year or beyond. It doesn’t matter, if completed or not, enforcement actions can be taken against any project so long as there are underlying contraventions, most especially projects that have bearing with contravention on public facilities.
The appointment to the position of FCT Chief Executive Officer or Minister is a trust to superintend on the implementation of the Masterplan, not a license for amassing the FCT lands. More so with contraventions of land uses, with impunity, for selfish benefits.
The only feigning defense we received recently was that the Government has the right to ‘readjust’ the Masterplan. It seems it is no more a review. In any case no review or so-called readjustment can explain any reason for any violation. So long as a planned and desired service is being denied for the public benefit as a result of the violation.
Meanwhile, no incumbent Administrator can defend any contravention when he is no longer in power. At that time the Administrator will certainly be preoccupied with his personal defense, not any other, who would then be a nuisance, or serve as a further proof of his maladministration. This is because all atrocities committed by previous administrations are always exposed as soon as a successor comes on board.
All those violating the plan that are being protected, would certainly be on their own. And the law establishing the Authority with the plan will certainly not be on their side. Many have lost their valuable investments in the past, and history has a way of repeating itself. Therefore, all developers that are subjects of land use violations must take note.