Obsolete laws for contemporary challenges

In May 2022, members of the FCTA executives undertook a study visit to Rwanda in order to know what made its capital city, Kigali, earn itself the reputation of being recognised as the most beautiful city in Africa. The revelation was simple: it was not because of the quality or magnificence of infrastructure, but because of the discipline and respect for law and order by the Rwandans, coupled with adequate planning in tune with dynamic urban challenges.

That recognition could be earned by any other city on the continent that could uphold these attributes, most especially the Nigerian capital, which ab initio was a product of modern planning and undoubtedly with greater developments than Kigali. Unfortunately, there are deficiencies in the relevant attributes.

No doubt, the get-rich-quick syndrome, aided by the exorbitant land value in Abuja, is heavily responsible for the unwholesome behaviour of those involved in breaching the legal provision on owning properties and their developments. Checkmating this menace requires punitive measures that are compatible with the offences committed and that are constantly being reviewed to conform to the current value of our currency.

Indeed, there are new trends in land and property-related crimes; however, what is posing a greater challenge to the urban management of Abuja is not the absence of the law but outdated punitive measures that never constitute deterrence to the offence. The criminalities involve traffic violations, illegal mining, illegal developments, environmental degradation, noise pollution, falsification or cloning of land documents, and many others.

The Abuja Environmental Protection Act of 1997 is one of such tools promulgated to check many violations, with the objectives of achieving sustainable development in the FCT by securing the quality of the environment adequate for the health and wellbeing of the residents and minimising the impact of physical development on the ecosystem of the territory, among others.

The Act identified almost all offensive activities that constitute environmental abuses and stipulated their offences in the past 26 years, but there has never been any review. The review has for long been sent to the National Assembly for approval but has never seen the light of day amidst many environmental violations.

A typical example of the obsolesce is in Section 18, where it states that the owner of any undeveloped plot in a built-up area who fails to keep it clean and tidy or free from overgrown grasses is guilty of an offence and liable, on conviction, to a fine of not less than N2,000, including the cost of cleaning by the authority.

So also are offences concerning the cultivation of crops, rearing animals, or allowing animals or birds to roam about in gardens or surrounding areas. While others concerning noise pollution or smoke to the level of being dangerous to human health attract a lesser fine, which is not less than N1,000.

Meanwhile, offences as grievous as the sale of alcoholic drinks in residential areas are still reading a fine of not less than N5,000. We can go on and on.

Punishments are expected to inflict pain on the perpetrators in order to serve as deterrence. But in such a situation where it is too inconsequential, it transforms into encouragement for continuation. Hence the preponderance of abandoned buildings, animals grazing, nocturnal disturbance, mechanic workshops and many other activities in many unauthorised areas.

Just last year, a well-known notorious land grabber was caught in the act of distortion of the mountainous areas for an illegal development. He was arrested, prosecuted and convicted. The best he could be charged in the circumstances of the outdated law was just N4 million for a crime in which the cost of reclamation of the land alone could be up to N500 million. He simply went out, opened his car boot, brought out the money, and paid. A week later, he went back to the forbidden site and continued his environmental degradation.

Similarly, agencies like the DTRS responsible for checking traffic violations are operating with executive regulations, which are challengeable in court, due to the herculean task of obtaining legislative approval from the National Assembly.

Constitutionally, the FCT is considered a state, but the executive power is vested in the president but delegated to the FCT minister. The legislative arm is the House of Representatives, with its 360 members. A state governor can speedily get approval from his House of Assembly in much fewer numbers with very little effort. But not so for the FCT minister. With so many submissions to the National Assembly for the review of many FCT laws, the National Assembly is urged to attach priority to the pending requests from the FCT Administration in order to stem the tide of lawlessness and ease the task of the city’s management.