Follow Us on Google
From Scholastica Hir, Makurdi
The activities of the Benue State Urban Development and Planning Board have come under public scrutiny following the demolition of structures in parts of Makurdi, with affected residents and other stakeholders questioning the agency’s intervention in cases involving disputed land ownership.
The controversy followed a recent demolition exercise carried out by the Board in parts of the Makurdi metropolis.
While the agency maintained that it was enforcing planning regulations and removing illegal developments, some affected residents argued that the properties were situated on land whose ownership remained contested.
They contended that enforcement ought not to have proceeded before the competing claims were conclusively resolved by the appropriate authorities.
The development has consequently triggered wider debate over the limits of the Board’s mandate and whether disputes over land ownership should be left to institutions traditionally empowered to determine title, including customary authorities, the Ministry of Lands and Survey and the courts.
Some affected residents argued that by proceeding with the demolition while ownership remained in dispute, the Board had effectively assumed a role beyond planning enforcement.
Beyond the legal questions, the residents said the exercise had left some families without shelter and exposed them to severe hardship.
They expressed particular concern about the humanitarian consequences of the demolition during the rainy season, warning that sudden displacement could expose women, children, elderly persons and other vulnerable residents to poor living conditions, inadequate sanitation and health risks.
Some residents also noted that the demolitions were taking place at a time when Benue State was still contending with displacement caused by insecurity, arguing that the loss of additional homes could put further pressure on already stretched humanitarian resources.
“We are concerned not only about the issue of land ownership but also about the welfare of the people affected,” one resident told Daily Sun.
“When homes are demolished before disputes are fully resolved, families are left to bear the consequences.”
The affected persons said they were pursuing redress through recognised and lawful channels, including engagement with traditional institutions, consultations with relevant government agencies and possible legal action to challenge the demolition and clarify ownership of the disputed land.
Traditional authorities were also said to have commenced efforts to facilitate discussions between the parties before the demolition exercise was completed.
Presenting the Board’s position, its General Manager, Ternongo Mede, said the agency did not set out to determine ownership but acted on findings from the Lands and Survey Department.
According to him, investigations showed that the occupants whose structures were demolished did not possess acceptable or corresponding title documents.
Mede maintained that the Board’s action was based on planning and development considerations arising from what the authorities regarded as unlawful developments on the land.
The Board also defended its decision to return to some of the affected sites to complete the demolition of structures that had been only partially removed during an earlier exercise.
It argued that leaving damaged buildings standing could pose safety risks.
Despite the explanation, residents and other stakeholders continue to question whether an enforcement action of such magnitude should proceed while ownership claims remain under challenge.
For them, the dispute has gone beyond the affected parcels of land to raise broader questions about administrative powers, due process and the proper procedure for resolving competing land claims.
As the affected residents continue to seek redress through traditional, administrative and legal channels, the controversy is expected to sustain debate over the boundary between urban planning enforcement and land adjudication in Benue State.
I kept the Board’s position clearly attributed and avoided presenting the residents’ legal interpretation as an established fact.
