•Governor Alex Otti of Abia State
The landowners in Nsulu, Isialangwa North Local Government Area of Abia State, host to the proposed Abia Airport, have rejected the acquisition of 1,025 hectares of land for the airport project, saying it would have catastrophic consequences on their communities, as the loss of the vast tract of land would lead to insufficient land for farming, housing, and essential needs, ultimately resulting in hunger, starvation, and potential extinction.
In an open letter to Governor Alex Otti of the state, yesterday, the landowners said: “On land mass, we strongly object to the proposed acquisition of 1,025 hectares of land for the Abia Airport, Nsulu, as it would have catastrophic consequences for our communities. The loss of this vast tract of land would lead to insufficient land for farming, housing, and essential needs, ultimately resulting in hunger, starvation, and potential extinction.
“Furthermore, the proposed land acquisition would exacerbate existing socio-economic challenges, increasing poverty, unemployment, and insecurity. Our communities would be left with reduced space for new homes, burial grounds, and community development, threatening our very way of life.
“In comparison, nearby airports such as Owerri, Ebonyi, and Enugu occupy between 250-360 hectares. In similar light, Abia State can learn from the design of Ninoy Aquino International Airport, MIAA, in Manila, Philippines, for example, which handles 48 million passengers annually and was built on 440 hectares. It has 4 terminal buildings, 7 hangar bays and a runway of 6km!
“Considering these concerns, we propose negotiating a land size of not more than 400 hectares for the airport. This compromise would balance the needs of the airport with the livelihoods and well-being of our communities.”
Further, they said: “Transparency and map coordinates. We respectfully request that the government provide us with the claim survey of the entire proposed acquisition and the coordinates and their control points. This information is crucial for us to understand the land requirements of the proposed airport design and its potential impact on our individual communities.
“The lack of transparency and the government’s forceful attempts to acquire our land have created distrust and raised concerns about the government’s intentions from the outset. We believe that providing this information is essential for building trust and ensuring that our communities are informed and engaged throughout the process.
“Representation. We take great exception to the government’s decision to appoint representatives for our host communities without our consent. This action disregards our autonomy and agency, and we strongly believe that we should be allowed to choose our own representatives to ensure our voices are heard.
“The current arrangement, where landowners are appointed to negotiate with themselves, is not only incongruous but also undermines the legitimacy of the process. “Furthermore, we are dismayed that some village representatives were unknown to the landowners they claimed to represent, and the government’s inaction when brought to their attention only exacerbates our concerns about accountability and transparency.
“We urge the government to recognise our right to self-representation and decision-making, and to engage in meaningful dialogue with us to address our concerns.
“Other projects: We restate that we do not have a problem with the airport project itself, but we oppose the government’s plan to site a hotel, housing estate, and school on our land for commercial purposes. We do not believe that these projects fall under the much touted “overriding public interest” that will necessitate a forceful acquisition of our land. We have offered suggestions to your government on alternative viable options.
“Court order: We demand that the government respect the court order to stay further action on the airport project pending the hearing and determination of our suit. The government’s continued actions on the project, despite the court order, undermine the rule of law and create a perception that the state is above the law. We urge the government to uphold the principles of law and order, and to adhere to the court’s directives, just as it expects its citizens to do.”
