By Joyce Remi-Babayeju
The Federal Capital Territory Administration, FCTA , on Thursday, 16th, 2025, demolished an 11-story building under construction at Apo DutseDistrict in Abuja.
Structures pulled down comprised 11 units of flats, comprising three and four bedrooms built under high tension electricity and too close to stream channels.
Speaking to journalists after the exercise, Director, Department of Development Control, Tpl. Mukhtar Galadima, said that the developer shunned all notices and all communications to abide by development regulations.
He said, “This is Garba Duba Street, which is within the Dutse District of Abuja, Federal Capital City. That’s phase two of the Federal Capital City, not far away from popular Cedarcrest, as well as Amina Court. So, we’re here this morning to enforce our notices being served.
He explained that the demolition became necessary because the estate is located under high tension and standing in the way of an upcoming bridge planned for the area.
Galadima explained that the plot was wrongfully allocated, adding that the developers had been offered an opportunity for alternative allocation, but they refused to accept it; instead, they proceeded with the illegal development.
He said, “This is a statutorily allocated plot. They requested approval and applied for building plan approval, but we declined because it’s close to a high-tension line, and stream channel. So, we declined to grant approval, but they moved ahead to work.”
“We have been serving notices, even from the excavation stage. Various stages of development, we’ve been serving notices, we even communicated to them in writing that the work should be stopped, but they shunned us.”
“But unfortunately, maybe considering their institution and agency, they moved on.”
Galadima also stated that the Engineering Department of the FCDA, wrote to his department on plans to construct a bridge on that particular section of the district. So, there’s nothing we can do about this, he added.
“Ruling out the possibility of compensation for the development, the Director explained that ‘compensation is given to any property that has approval but is cut by development process.”
He added that in the case of the demolished property, there was “no approval; the developer was asked to stop at the excavation stage, but he didn’t comply, so there’s no compensation,” he said.
“When you prosecute people, this is just to pay a penalty, or they will pay for the cost of mobilization to sites. The context here is that you should charge such an offender. Going in detail, I don’t have that knowledge.”
The Director also hinted at the possibility of prosecuting defaulting developers and making them pay the penalties, including the cost of demolition.
