Need for FCTA departments to work together

The Nigerian Institute of Town Planners (NITP) recently paid a courtesy visit to the FCT Minister, Muhammad Bello. Among the issues raised in the memorandum submitted to the minister was the lack of synergy and cooperation among the agencies/departments responsible for planning and implementation of detailed layouts and physical development plans in the FCT. The […]

The Nigerian Institute of Town Planners (NITP) recently paid a courtesy visit to the FCT Minister, Muhammad Bello. Among the issues raised in the memorandum submitted to the minister was the lack of synergy and cooperation among the agencies/departments responsible for planning and implementation of detailed layouts and physical development plans in the FCT. The institute observed that the seemingly poor coordination among the departments of Lands, Urban & Regional Planning, Development Control, AGIS, Engineering Services and other relevant departments has resulted in the poor implementation of Abuja Master Plan.
Matters arising from this observation came to fore at the FCT URP Tribunal, in a complaint instituted by the occupants of Block G15 FCDA Owner Occupier Quarters Kubwa, against the owner of plot number 2353, which is in a new layout in Cadastral Zone F15 Kubwa Extension, beside the Owner Occupier Quarters. The reason for the complaint was that from the established beacons of plot number 2353, it became obvious that if its development is allowed, there will be a total blockage of access into the various apartments of the Owner Occupier Quarters. This fact was not disputed by the defendant.
It thus became clear that the allocation of plot number 2353 in the Kubwa Extension was improper, because the authority did not take relevant planning laws into consideration before establishing the plot and granting the allocation. All efforts made by the complainants through various letters to the FCT Minister and relevant FCTA departments, to solve it by readjusting the boundaries of the properties to provide access to the affected Owner Occupier Quarters proved abortive.
At the commencement of the pre-hearing proceedings, the disputing parties reached a resolution to reduce the sizes of the adjoining plots and create the needed access to serve those properties that were rendered inaccessible. The tribunal then forwarded copies of the terms of settlement to the relevant departments of the FCTA for their comments and observations. These departments are: Lands, Urban and Regional Planning, Survey and Mapping, Development Control and Public Building.
 All the departments wrote and formally accepted the terms of the settlement and complied with the directives of the tribunal, except the Lands Department, with its reason that plot no 2353 Cadastral Zone F15 was not allocated to the defendant at the tribunal but to a different person entirely. It thus raised the issue of proper parties before the tribunal, because the defendant had represented himself as the allottee and occupier to the said plot.
The objection by Lands did not prevent the tribunal from delivering its judgment, on the ground that the proceedings of a court of law will not be a nullity on the ground of lack of competent or lack of jurisdiction merely because a plaintiff fails to join a party who ought to have been joined. The tribunal therefore adopted the terms of settlement in its judgment and ordered the relevant FCTA departments to note these changes and make requisite amendments with regards the sizes of the plots.
From the revelations in this case and many others earlier, we can deduce what caused this confusion. Obviously, whoever redesigned the layout containing plot number 2353 F15 did so without visiting the site. Subsequently, whoever was the site officer that wrote the report for site inspection prior to the development control granting of building plan approval also did so without visiting the site.
The URP tribunal issued a very incriminatory closing remark at the end of its judgment. It said, “In conclusion, tracing the antecedents of this case, we note sadly that this dispute would have been avoided if there was harmonization of the positions or decisions of various departments and agencies involved in land management. We find it appropriate to admonish public servants to always adhere to due process in the performance of their duties. Many at times some of these officials go out of their ways in resorting to methods that will embarrass the government in carrying out simple duties. This sometimes leads to payment of huge damages. We strongly feel that this is a sad reflection on those who are employed and paid to assist in implementation of rules and regulations made under the laws. In the same vein we call for more networking and consultation amongst the various departments and agencies”.