Makurdi demolitions put Benue urban planning board's land powers under scrutiny

The activities of the Benue State Urban Development and Planning Board have come under scrutiny following the demolition of structures in Makurdi, with residents and stakeholders questioning whether a planning agency should involve itself in resolving disputed land ownership.

The debate follows a recent demolition exercise undertaken by the board in parts of the Makurdi metropolis. The agency maintains that it was enforcing planning regulations and removing illegal developments. Critics argue that some of the affected properties stand on land whose ownership is still contested, and they question whether enforcement should proceed before such claims are conclusively resolved.

The controversy has sparked wider discussion about the limits of the board's mandate and whether matters involving competing land claims should be left to institutions traditionally empowered to determine ownership, including customary authorities, the Ministry of Lands and Survey, and the courts. Several affected residents contend that the demolition effectively elevated the board into an adjudicator in disputes that have yet to receive a final determination through the appropriate resolution mechanisms.

Those affected say the exercise has left families without shelter and exposed them to significant hardship. Beyond the destruction of structures, residents expressed concern about the humanitarian implications, particularly during the rainy season, warning that sudden displacement exposes vulnerable groups, including women, children and elderly persons, to poor living conditions, inadequate sanitation and heightened health risks. Some residents also noted that the demolitions come at a time when Benue State continues to grapple with displacement arising from insecurity.

"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." Affected persons say they are pursuing redress through recognised and lawful channels, including engagement with traditional institutions, consultations with relevant government agencies and the exploration of legal remedies. Traditional authorities had reportedly begun efforts to facilitate discussions between the parties before the demolition exercise was completed.

Presenting the board's position, its general manager, Mr Ternongo Mede, said the agency did not set out to determine ownership but acted after receiving findings from the Lands and Survey Department. According to him, investigations indicated that the occupants whose structures were removed did not possess acceptable or corresponding title documents. Mede maintained that the board's interventions were based on planning and development considerations arising from what the authorities regarded as unlawful developments on the land, and the board defended its decision to return to some sites to complete the demolition of structures partially removed in an earlier exercise, arguing that leaving damaged buildings standing could create safety concerns.