Achievements and challenges of FCT URP tribunal

As the first and only URP Tribunal in Nigeria, despite the fact that the law that established it recommends the establishment in the 36 States and the FCT, the FCT Administration deserves commendation. However, it is a fact that the tribunal was established since 1996, about 19 years ago, but as we said earlier the […]

As the first and only URP Tribunal in Nigeria, despite the fact that the law that established it recommends the establishment in the 36 States and the FCT, the FCT Administration deserves commendation. However, it is a fact that the tribunal was established since 1996, about 19 years ago, but as we said earlier the rules for the commencement of its operation in line with the provision of the Act (Section 89), was not issued by the Attorney General and Minister of Justice of the Federation, until 2008, which was 12 years after the establishment.
In our last episode, we made a statement that the tribunal serves as a very potent and veritable tool for the restoration of the Abuja Master Plan. In 2005, consequent to the renewed effort by the FCT to restore the Abuja Master Plan, the tribunal was reconstituted and new members appointed. The members served for a period of three years from 2005. After working assiduously to acquire the rules, it could not conduct any sitting up to the expiration of their tenure in 2008 due to the challenges involving staff shortages and the lack of accommodation. The next set of members reconstituted was not sworn-in to commence their three-years tenure until 16th March 2010. They started receiving cases immediately upon inauguration and had their inaugural sitting on the 15th April 2010. There were 19 cases.
The current members were sworn-in on 19th of June, 2014 for tenure of three years. Presently it has 58 cases before it, going through both pre-trial and courtroom trial. There other 113 cases that were not filled due to improper documentation. As for the 58 cases before the tribunal, 21 are on-going, 10 were withdrawn, two were determined on merit, three were determined by Alternative Dispute Resolution at Pre-trial, four were declined for lack of jurisdiction, six were struck out for lack of diligent prosecution, while 12 cases were abandoned by the complainants.
There is much litigation of landed properties between individuals, corporate organizations and authorities which takes longer time and resources before resolution in the conventional courts. At the same time huge amount of money as damages used to be awarded against the authorities as a result of failures in cases. It is worthy of note that the tribunal can save a lot of money for FCTA by resolving cases at less cost than the regular courts. The same also goes for persons and corporate organizations.
The dispensation of justice by the tribunal would be more prompt if most of the tribunal challenges are addressed. The tribunal is presently understaffed, there is shortage of necessary office equipment, non release of necessary budgetary estimates for its operation and it is relatively unknown. It thus becomes imperative for the authorities to ensure that the needs of the tribunal are met and to promote publicity in the media for better knowledge and patronage by the citizens.
Despite the fact that the tribunal organizes interactive sessions with stakeholder departments and agencies from time to time, most of these departments do not cooperate with the tribunal for the achievement of its mandate. The most important among these is the Development Control. After serving enforcement notices for contraventions by developers, the Control Department is expected to channel cases to the tribunal before demolitions in order to have legal backing for its action. This is one of the necessary actions to effect demolition according to section 62 of the URP Law. Unfortunately, this procedure is now being observed in the breach. Had the Control Department complied with this procedure prior to the Minanuel Housing Estate demolition it would have had more legal backing when the crisis raged.
One of the cases currently on trial at the tribunal is between some Kugbo residents and Sunrise Estate Developers. The Sunrise Estate allocation happened to encroach on an earlier individual allocations made by the Abuja Municipal Area Council (AMAC). Unfortunately, the estate developers are now trying to violate orders of status quo ante, by recently commencing fresh pegging to continue development, and were not stopped by the Control Department, generating speculation for a seeming collaboration. We advise the Control Department not to cause itself any unnecessary embarrassment by taking side with any of the party, until the tribunal’s resolution on the matter. Thus unlike the Minanuel case, the Kugbo residents seem to have all valid documents prior to the commencement of their developments, even before the Sunrise Estate allocation was made.
The FCTA was it that established the tribunal; at the same time it was the same authorities that used to violate the laws and procedure for allocation and Development Control enforcement. In addition to the case involving the Kugbo residents, there are other instances when the tribunal dismisses the FCTA’s preliminary objection in land use cases. A typical example is the case between an Educational Institution, the Subulus Salam Islamic International Association of Nigeria and the FCTA. Thus, the public should not panic based on the popular adage that he who pays the piper dictates the tune, because it doesn’t seem to apply in the working of the tribunal.