Over the years and accentuated in the last couple of months, Nigeria has witnessed a gale of forced evictions and demolition of housing. From the days of Maroko in Lagos, to the fury of evictions and demolition under the guise of preserving the Abuja master plan, and the ongoing action in Lagos, demolitions and evictions have now become an instrument of state policy. This discourse reviews this gale of demolitions within the context of the jurisprudence of the right to adequate housing. It concludes with recommendations for a proper and civilised engagement between the state and individuals on the issue of land and housing from the perspective of security of tenure.
The first point to note is that the houses and properties being destroyed through evictions and demolitions are part of the capital stock of Nigeria even though they are registered or owned by individual citizens. A nation with a housing deficit in excess of 20 million houses is busy demolishing the few available houses that citizens built for themselves is a contradictory action. Even though it is an individual or family that bears the immediate brunt of the demolition, the nation depreciates its stock of housing.
The second point is to acknowledge that housing is one of the basic needs of humanity. Modern civilised societies have transformed housing from just a basic need to a basic human right. Nigeria is a state party to a plethora of standards that provide for the right to adequate housing. These include the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights [Article 11(1)]; Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women [Article 14 (2) (h)]; Convention on the Rights of the Child [Article 27 (3)]; Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination [article 5 (e) (iii)]; International Labour Organisation Convention No.117 Concerning Basic Aims and Standards of Social Policy [Articles 2, 4 (d) and 5 (2)], etc. Being a state party, all arms of Nigeria’s government are expected, pacta sunt servanda, to implement all provisions of the treaties. By S.43 of the 1999 Constitution, every citizen of Nigeria shall have the right to acquire and own immovable property (including land and housing) anywhere in Nigeria.
One of the cardinal parameters of the right to adequate housing is the security of tenure and a guarantee against forced evictions and demolition of housing. In General Comment No.4, the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights stated that: “Tenure takes a variety of forms, including rental (public and private) accommodation, cooperative housing, lease, owner-occupation, emergency housing and informal settlements, including occupation of land or property. Notwithstanding the type of tenure, all persons should possess a degree of security of tenure which guarantees legal protection against forced eviction, harassment and other threats. States parties should consequently take immediate measures aimed at conferring legal security of tenure upon those persons and households currently lacking such protection, in genuine consultation with affected persons and groups.”
Furthermore, the right to adequate housing and other economic and social rights impose three state duties; the duties to respect, protect and fulfil. The duty to respect is a negative duty for the state not to take action that violates existing housing rights. The duty to protect involves shielding citizens from violation of their housing rights by third parties whilst the duty to fulfil involves administrative, budgetary, judicial and other steps for the positive realisation and affirmation of the right to adequate housing. Thus, there is a duty to fulfil – for the state to provide housing for all subject to the availability of resources.
So, when a state government or the Federal Capital Territory sets in motion a process that demolishes houses built by citizens and forcefully evicts them from their homes, it is evident that the state is in clear violation of its duties under the right to adequate housing. Let us review the arguments in support of evictions and demolitions. The first is usually about the lack of legal titles, permits, approvals, etc. In some instances, houses and estates are built and occupied for tens of years before agents of the state wake up and declare the occupation of land and housing illegal. The state literally sleeps on its rights and pretends that all is well until it moves the bulldozers. In other instances, some officials of state give permits and approvals which later turn out to have been wrongly given. The officials are usually not reprimanded or punished or in any way made to suffer punishment for their actions but the family which has sunk millions of naira is made to suffer. Furthermore, others are accused of building on flood plains or blocking water channels and canals, etc., and the houses are forcefully demolished. Finally, there are instances of pure land grab, where the poor are evicted to make way for the houses of the rich.
There is a big issue in most of these demolitions vis, the fact that there are alternatives that can result in a win-win situation that does not involve the demolition of homes. In cases where the houses are not blocking any infrastructure channels including flood, electricity or the general right to way, these houses could be spared and the owners made to regularise through payment of appropriate fees and penalties to gain the necessary permits. Also, where it is possible to re-channel the flood or infrastructure facilities to be paid for by the person who has inadvertently built in contravention of the regulations, this could also be explored. At the end of the day, the public purpose is achieved without imposing prohibitive costs on the individual builder. For the officials who granted fake permits, they should be punished in accordance with the law. For infrastructure channels, it is important that officials charged with keeping them free from encroachment become proactive and regularly visit the sites to prevent buildings from the early stage of foundations before they are completed, furnished and occupied.
There are instances where evictions and demolitions have been done in violation of court orders or during the pendency of litigations, thereby denying the house owners the benefit of due process of law encapsulated in the right to fair hearing. It is therefore imperative that state governments and the authorities do not take steps to overreach the courts and face the courts with a fait accompli whereby the orders and judgments of the court would no longer matter.
