Mixed reactions trail demolition at Enugu Centenary City
HURIWA alleges govt carried out questionable actions
MIXED reactions have trailed last weekend’s demolition of buildings at the Centenary City, Obeagu, Awkunanaw, in Enugu South Local Council.
The demolition was carried out by the state government over alleged infractions.
During the exercise, about 15 buildings under construction were destroyed, including an alleged kidnappers’ hideout where the police arrested three male suspects.
The state government, through the Enugu Capital Territory Development Authority ( ECTDA), defended the action, saying it was meant to protect investors. Persons who were affected by the demolition, however, have continued to accuse the government of bias.
ECTDA Chairman, Uche Anya, said: “No developer is allowed to put one block, by way of development, without approval. And we are not going to give you that approval if you do not have proper documents.
“ECTDA is determined to
frustrate every attempt to illegally grab land or encroach. So, when we see you going, we take down the carcass. If you have gone to the extent that human emotions are provoked, we give you a stop work order; we tell you to come and explain what you are doing. Go to the ministry of land and get your papers.
“We don’t want a situation where you go on vacation; and on coming back, a stranger has built on your land, and tells you to go to
court. The video of a marked but un- demolished property trended by a developer on social media validates our position because the video shows his house untouched.”
He added: “Our case is very simple, whatever development anybody wants to do; you must show us a valid title. Then, you must obtain appropriate approval. We want to know what you are building. We want to be sure that it is something we will allow. We have restrictions on height. We have zones, we have industrial areas. We are not deterred by blackmails. We are determined to stamp out land grabbers’ efforts to betray the investorfriendliness of Enugu State.”
But a developer, Eric Ugwu, whose building under construction was demolished, said he acquired the land properly and obtained necessary approval from agencies of government before embarking on the project.
He said his building received the ‘ stop work’ mark, last week, but noted: “I was not given the opportunity to produce my documents before the agency’s caterpillar was used to bring down my structure.”
Also, a Senior Pastor of Censers Church, Ugochukwu Anike, said he was devastated by the destruction of his church building and accused the government of bias. He said: “The same documents other buildings have are what I have. I have documentation for this property. Why was I discriminately targeted?”
M
EANWHILE, Human Rights Writers Association of Nigeria ( HURIWA) faulted what it called questionable actions of the government in demolishing over 200 buildings in the Centenary City.
It called for transparency in resolution of the land dispute. It also urged the government to address concerns and uphold justice for affected communities. HURIWA, which condemned the hasty demolition, called for sanctions against the head of the Enugu housing agency for allegedly imposing a fait accompli, even when there are legal disputes on the propriety or otherwise of Enugu State government’s action on ownership of the landed assets.
In a statement by the group’s National Coordinator, Emmanuel Onwubiko , HURIWA challenged the government’s narrative, which justified the demolition, citing lack of proper approval, and security concerns.
According to HURIWA, the dispute could be traced to the late 1970s when Jim Nwobodo, then governor of Old Anambra State, en visioned establishing a university in Amechi Awkunanaw.
“This noble initiative was disrupted owing to his failed reelection bid in 1983, creating an avenue for later disputes over ownership of the land.”
It pointed out alleged discrepancies in the govern - ment’s attempt to legitimise acquisition of the land through an official gazette, specifically questioning the authenticity of Gazette No. 12, dated March 27, 1986. The association highlighted incongruities in the timeline and raised doubts about the revocation process.