Development has its burdens. It involves moving out or away from the status quo. In a political sense, it disrupts indigenous monarchies and legitimate traditional institutions of governance and morals. It dislocates people and forces some to live nearby neighbours. In the past, the great Assyrian power would uproot people from their native lands and transplant them to another place to discourage revolt and secure their loyalty. When Whiteman happened to us Africans, they took our land and forced some to live nearby their neighbours forcing a homogenous culture that has continued to atrophy.
In Africa just as in every culture, land is the people’s ultimate inheritance. It is the most valuable asset. He who has land has everything because no physical development takes place in a vacuum. Unfortunately, Nigeria government in Land Use Act of 1978 gave every land to the government. Government has right to take people’s land for developmental project or the like. Over the years, this Act has not gone down well with people of Nigeria. No wonder, people are calling for its revocation in ongoing constitutional review.
The creation of Ebonyi State was received with great joy. But that has meant people losing their land. Communities have been disintegrated and families forced to abandon the graveyards of their ancestors to create space for development. Some have willingly sold off their own lands and are now tenants in their own land.
As far as this is concerned, Izzi has donated or rather given up 90 per cent of the land Ebonyi State has used for developmental projects since the capital city is sited at the heart of the clan. The state university, the government house and ministries were all given without much ado, compensation or not.
People’s joy knew no bounds when Ochudo government at inception of office in 2007 swung into action to break impasse surrounding the embattled Izzi land which men of Nigeria military had sized for years. Under military control, people of the area were allowed to live and cultivate in the land but were exposed to repeated trespasses by the military officers who could enter one’s house and sell the fruits therein.
The joy of the people was short-lived when immediately after reclaiming the land, government announced its intention to use the land for new Abakaliki Capital City and thereby gave directives to the people of the area to vacate without delay. To demonstrate its seriousness, government commenced feasibility study on the land which was followed by demolition to give way for the commencement of much celebrated Ochudo City.
The indigenes of Agbaja and inyimegu Unuhu communities who are the most affected never came to terms with government’s action until recently when government embarked on massive demolition of houses, churches, town halls and other private and public institutions sited in the area as part of the ongoing work at the Ochudo site. As I put down these words, families are littered around the road, some pitching tents like Israelites wandering through the desert to the Promise Land, streets are filled up many begging for crumbs of food. Houses and barns have been pulled down and ancestors’ graves and compounds converted to dusty express roads. The anguish is extreme as government’s order is being carried to the last by the contractors handling the project.
Two questions have been repeatedly asked. Granted that government has power over land and has taken over the land, what alternative has it made for the people? Why was compensation paid to only few while others are allowed to become refugees in their own fatherland?
The Land Use Act we must respect but does this Act empower government to be insensitive to people’s plight? Government is meant to care and provide for its people. When it deems it necessary to relocate people from their homes for exigencies, it is still bound by obligation to make provisions for the displaced people. Agbaja and Inyimegu Unuphu communities may not be asking too much if they insist that government provide alternatives. It would have been a different matter if they never contested maltreatment being meted to them when the land was under the Nigerian army. But their protest was genuine. They went to press; they visited various government administrations at various times urging them to intervene on their behalf. And when government achieved a breakthrough under Gov Elechi, they had heaved a relief thinking that the victory was theirs. To dismiss them as nuisances in their land will be the greatest act of betrayal by government voted in to protect the interest of the voters.
When demolition must be carried out, people must be psychological prepared not in the sense of ‘quit-noticing’ but by provision of settlement alternative and proper orientation to see forfeiture of their ancestral land as patriotic contribution to nation-building. Besides, money should be given to such people to start a new life. When destruction ignores commensurate restructuring and construction we risk making posterity an enemy more so in a government that is quick to destroy but slow to construct.
