Abuja, Nigeria — A confrontation between the Federal Capital Territory Administration (FCTA) and uniformed naval personnel at Plot 1946 in the Gaduwa District has triggered a national debate on the legal boundaries between civilian land administration and military authority. The incident, captured in widely circulated videos, unfolded during an enforcement exercise led by FCT Minister Nyesom Wike. What began as a regulatory intervention quickly developed into a constitutional test case.
1. Background of the Incident
On arrival at the Gaduwa site, the minister and FCTA enforcement teams encountered naval personnel who blocked access to the plot, citing orders to protect property linked to a senior military officer. The FCTA had reportedly dispatched bulldozers and inspection officers to halt ongoing development on the land, which authorities say lacked a valid Right of Occupancy and approved building plans.
The standoff escalated into a public argument over documentation, authority, and jurisdiction, raising questions about the legality of military deployment on non-gazetted land and the scope of the minister’s enforcement powers.
2. Status of Plot 1946
According to FCTA planning records:
- The plot was originally designated as Parks & Recreation.
- There is no verified approval for change of use.
- The site allegedly had no valid title under the Land Use Act.
- Development commenced without building plan approval, a violation of Development Control regulations.
On this basis, FCTA initiated an enforcement/demolition action.
3. Civilian Legal Authority Over the Land
The legal framework around land administration in Abuja is unambiguous.
Land Use Act 1978 (LUA)
The LUA, constitutionally entrenched via Section 315(5), vests:
Exclusive land authority in the Federal Government.
Within the FCT, this power is delegated to the FCT Minister, who exercises all powers of a state governor under:
- Sections 5–6: granting/refusing occupancy rights
- Section 11: entering and inspecting land
- Section 28: revoking rights of occupancy
- Enforcement provisions: stopping or demolishing illegal structures
FCT Act 1976 & Development Control Regulations
These provide the minister the power to:
- Seal sites
- Enforce planning laws
- Demolish unauthorized developments
- Halt projects pending approval
Conclusion:
The minister’s inspection and enforcement actions are legally grounded.
4. Military Authority and Constitutional Limits
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (1999)
Section 217 – Functions of the Armed Forces
The military may only:
- Defend Nigeria from external aggression.
- Maintain territorial integrity.
- Suppress insurrection.
- Assist civil authorities when requested.
- Perform statutory functions assigned by an Act of the National Assembly.
The Constitution does not authorize military involvement in civil land disputes unless a lawful request is made.
Section 218 – Command and Deployment
Deployment of military personnel on domestic grounds must be:
- Ordered by the President,
- Routed through the service chiefs,
- And must comply with constitutional limits.
There is no evidence of such authorization in this case.
5. Armed Forces Act – Lawful vs. Unlawful Orders
Under the Armed Forces Act (AFA):
- Soldiers must obey lawful orders.
- Soldiers must not obey manifestly unlawful orders.
- Orders that contradict the Constitution or statutes are invalid.
A deployment to obstruct civilian land enforcement without constitutional basis may qualify as an unlawful order.
6. The Military’s Defence
From the military’s perspective, personnel on site acted:
- Under chain-of-command instructions,
- With the belief that the land was under legitimate claim,
- And with the understanding that demolition equipment required verification.
These factors reduce individual liability but do not constitute constitutional authorization.
7. The Civilian/FCTA Defence
The FCTA asserts:
- The land was unapproved for development.
- The minister has legal powers under LUA and Development Control.
- Military personnel have no jurisdiction on the land.
- Blocking access to an inspection violates statutory authority.
Their position aligns with constitutional and statutory provisions.
8. Legal Conflict Summary
Civilian Authority
- LUA gives minister full control over land in FCT.
- Inspection and demolition are lawful regulatory actions.
Military Authority
- Constitution restricts deployment on civilian matters.
- No evidence of presidential authorization for this operation.
Key Legal Principle
Civil authority in land matters supersedes all military involvement except where expressly authorised by law.
9. Possible Legal Breaches
Potential Military Breaches
- Unlawful obstruction of statutory authority
- Deployment without constitutional mandate
- Acting under an ultra vires directive
Potential Civilian Breaches
None established unless:
- Physical force was used, or
- Demolition lacked due process (no evidence of this).
10. Broader Institutional Implications
The incident exposes systemic issues:
- Lack of inter-agency protocol between FCTA and Defence HQ
- Ambiguity in the handling of land allocated to security personnel
- Growing tensions in Abuja’s highly contested land sector
- Need for clearer presidential guidelines on military involvement in civil enforcement
This standoff may set a precedent for future adjudication of similar disputes.
11. Final Legal Conclusion
1. The Minister acted within lawful powers under the Land Use Act.
2. The land fell under civilian regulatory jurisdiction.
3. The military presence on the site lacked constitutional basis unless further documentation emerges.
4. Any military order contradicting the LUA or Section 217 is legally void.
5. Civil authority supersedes military authority in all land matters.
The Abuja incident is therefore best understood as a structural and constitutional breakdown, not simply a personal confrontation — a rare moment where Nigeria’s civil governance framework and military command structure clashed in public view.
