Issues on customary title in FCT

The FCT Minister recently approved the immediate closure  of all zonal land offices of the FCT by virtue of an interval circular from the Permanent Secretary.  This open letter is intended to acquaint us with the history of the issue of customary title in the FCT, with a view to understanding that the FCTA had […]

The FCT Minister recently approved the immediate closure  of all zonal land offices of the FCT by virtue of an interval circular from the Permanent Secretary. 

This open letter is intended to acquaint us with the history of the issue of customary title in the FCT, with a view to understanding that the FCTA had been in consistent violation of a Supreme Court judgment since 2004. 

The FCT Administration should therefore understand that the zonal land offices should be immediately restored in the spirit of the Rule of Law, and Equity for the people of the FCT. Every state in the country enjoys Customary Title except the FCT. 

From its creation in 1976 to the year 2004, the people of the FCT enjoyed Customary right of occupancy. This was abolished in 2004, sequel to a Court ruling in a case No CA/A/54/97 in which judgment was delivered 0n 25th July, 2000. In its ruling on the case, the Court of Appeal held that: 

(a) The Customary Right of Occupancy of the original inhabitants of the land that now constitute the Federal Capital Territory was abolished as from 4th February, 1976, when the FCT Act came into force; 

(b) The land use Act (1978) is not applicable in the FCT and, therefore, the designation of Urban and Rural Lands in the FCT, as provided in the Land use Act is not applicable; 

(c)  Section 49 (1) of the Land use Act, 1 (3) of the FCT Act and 261 (2) of the 1979 Constitution as amended, had the combined effect of abolishing Customary Right of Occupancy in the FCT;

(d) There is no legal backing for compelling the President or the  Minister of the FCT to designate any part of the Territory as Urban and Rural , and also that; 

(e)  Section 36 of the Land use Act is inapplicable in the Federal Capital Territory.

This judgment of the Appeal Court was challenged by Abaji Area Council and 4 others, at the Supreme Court, in a case No. SC/ 187/2000, on 27/11/2000.

The basis for the appeal was on the applicability or otherwise of the provision of Section 259 (2) of the Constitution of Nigeria. The appellants sought the following relief:  

(i) That the Supreme Court allows the appeal;

(ii) And to set – aside the Court of Appeal verdict. 

In its response to the appeal, the Supreme Court, through Judgment delivered by Hon. Justice SMA Belgore (JSC)on 4/11/04 held as follows:

(1) Allowed the appeal and stated that Customary title is not abolished by the FCT Act;

(2) The Constitution of the Country vests power of Local Government on each of the Area Councils of the Federal Capital Territory, and, 

(3)  That the Appeal Court adversely affected the right and duties of the Area Councils without a hearing. 

The Supreme Court judgment further emphatically stated that: 

– The provision of Section 36 of the Land use Act is applicable in the Federal Capital Territory, and 

– That the interpretation placed on the Section by the learned justices of the Appeal Court was ‘Restrictive and per incuriae. 

Accordingly, through judgment delivered by Hon. Justice Idris L. Kutigi (JSC), the Supreme Court ‘set –aside’ the judgment of the Appeal Court, which was the basis on which Federal Capital Territory Administration Management abolished Customary Title in the Territory in 2004.

The summary of the situation is that;

(1) By virtue of a Court of Appeal Judgment, in a suit No. CA/A/54/97, Customary Land Title was abolished in the Federal Capital Territory in 2004;

(2) The judgment was challenged at the Supreme Court in a suit No. SC/187/2000;

(3)  The Court of Appeal Judgment was set aside  by the Supreme Court with emphasis that Customary Land Title was not abolished by the FCT Act;

(4) By the combined effect of Sections 49 (1) of the Land use Act, 1 (3) of the FCT Act 261 (1) of the 1979 Constitution, the Land use ACT (1978) is applicable in the FCT;

(5) By Virtue OF Decree 38 of 1989, Decree 7 of 1997, Sections 36 and 51 of the Land use Act, with all the intentions of Sections 263 and 264 of the 1999 Constitution, there exists a customary Right of Occupancy in the FCT, and, 

(6) That the exercise of the power to grant Customary Title by the Area Council of the Federal Capital Territory is not in conflict with the power of the Federal Government over Land in the urban areas of the Federal Capital Territory.

Please note that since the Supreme Court issued this verdict in 2004, it has not reversed itself in any subsequent judgment to date.

The zonal Land offices were created by Law, and the Supreme Court has upheld their statutory power and authority.

Associated with the abolishing of customary title in the FCT, was the banning of Zonal Planning offices from carrying out Development Control activities.

The abolishing of development control activities by the Zonal Planning Offices (The Authority in the URP Law 1992), is in violation of this law. This is contained in Part 2, section 27 (1)of the URP Law, which provides that there shall be a Control Department at all levels of the Commission, the Board and the Authority (the letter corresponding with the Zonal Planning Offices of the FCT).

The URP Law as also provided on pages A1017 to A1019 that Statutory Town and Rural  Plans are the exclusive preserve of the Authority (Zonal Planning Office). The abolishing of customary title has also contravened this provision of the URP Law 1992. 

I am confident that this Change administration will conform with the Rule of Law, on the issue of Customary Title in the FCT.

Mohammed Ahmed is a U.N. Volunteer on Urban and Regional Planning.