Concerned Residents Of Southend County Seek Government Intervention To End Alleged Masterplan Alterations

Communique issued at the end of meeting of Concerned Residents of Southend estate in Abuja

The estate is newly developed and situated in a very peaceful neighbourhood located just behind or beside several notable government institutions namely Nigerian Immigration Service (Hq), Nigerian Security and Civil Defence Corp HQ (NSCDC), Nigerian AirForce Base, to mention a few.

Residents started moving into the estate about two years ago. It is said that the Estate is a brainchild of _Nigerian Airspace Management Agency (NAMA) Abuja Staff Cooperative Society_ in conjunction with a developer, Messrs Mercy Samuelson Property. Survey shows that the estate now serve as home for many senior officers of Government owned institutions and other highly placed citizens and members of the society. There are personnel from the NAMA, FAAN, NCAA, Nigerian Airforce, Nigerian Correctional Facility, Nigerian Immigration Services, Nigerian Army, Nigerian Navy and many others who have found the estate, a peaceful place of abode, at least, until recently.

However, this relative peace is now being threatened by the action of a group of individuals allegedly bent of forcing illegality down the throat of others under the cover of religious practice.

Trouble is now believed to be brewing in the once peaceful neighbouhood where all families have before now, lived peacefully with one another, without regard to their religion, ethnicity, social status or creed.

There is now need to call the attention of the FCT administration, Development Control, security agencies and any other government agencies to rise up and stop the ugly trend before it degenerates further and spiral out of control. The House Committee on Public Petitions is also called upon to set the records straight on its alleged role in the embroiglo as the parties in the conflict seem to have their own interpretations of the directive handed down.

An enumeration of the series of events that led to the present debacle

1. The Muslims in the estate have lived peacefully with others and have been carrying out their prayers in front of block D5 (the Estate Residents Association Chairman's car park). Even though as a general rule, the association placed embargo on use of unapproved places for any form of religious activity capable of disturbing peace and quiet, residents have allowed this prayer activities to go unchallenged in the interest of peace, love and mutual respect, PROVIDED, public address system was not used.

2. While we are not privy to the considerations that led to the owner of the apartment D5 offering his car park space for the said daily Muslim prayers, it is rumoured that with time, it gradually became an inconvenience to him. (This assertion in itself may be the reason for vehemently championing the actions for relocation, even if it means, in breach of any laid down rules, procedures or laws).

3. Consequent upon the above, some members of the Muslim community mobilized and invaded a section of the estate with a view to occupying it for use for daily prayers. That section was not built up at that time as construction was ongoing within the estate in phases. It is said that the developer and his team rebuffed the invasion and neutralized the plan. The place is now built up at this moment in line with the development plan of the estate.

4. In a swift reaction, the same group allegedly mobilized to Development Control in an effort to get the authority to look into possibility of identifying flaws in the development plan and possibly securing space for their use. Officials of Development Control came to the estate presumably for fact finding and returned. No success, possibly because they couldn't pick holes. All this is reported to have happened late last year.

5. Not satisfied with the outcomes, the group made effort to get the office of the Hon Minister of FCT (Or was it the office of the Executive Secretary to FCTA?) to help do their bidding. Still no success. According to the developer, he got phone calls allegedly from "the authority" inviting him to meet, but he declined and requested that any such invitations be put in writing. That was the last he heard from them.

*Note: As of this moment, there is no evidence of any official correspondence authored by the group to the above authorities, neither was there any approvals granted. All this efforts may at best be unofficial efforts to leverage social capital for primordial gains without considerations to other people's concerns*

6. Unsatisfied with the futility of all the above efforts, it is said that the group petitioned the House Committee on Public Petition with a view to _getting_ their demands met. This is presumably the first official communication to any authority on this matter. Perhaps a step in the right direction.

7. Following the invitation by the above Committee, the developer and the group met at the National Assembly. It is reported that the committee advised the parties to take religious issues with utmost caution and go back to find a peaceful resolution. It is also categorically reported that the developer made his position very clear at the National Assembly meeting that: *there is no provision for construction of religious worship centres of any kind in the approved plan of the Estate*

8. Further to providing a soft landing, the developer allegedly told the group to look for a suitable place, *solely for prayers* as is being quietly done in block D5 where they have been using and _get_ back to him for consideration.

9. It was also reported that the Committee of the House told both parties to go back and return sometime around January or February, 2022 for continuation of hearing. Worthy to note is that this position of the Committee was purely advisory and in line with their constitutional mandate.

10. Within the period, the group arbitrarily identified a space where public works and water infrastructure is presently sited and currently operational. The same location is site for other projects such as second alternative access gate, gate house, security _watchtower_ , etc. Without recourse to any consultations or necessary approvals, the group mobilized to site and occupied it.

11. Following the above, the true intention of the group was revealed where one of the main actors (the Chairman of Southend Residents Association and the original voluntary donor of his car park for daily Muslim prayers) displayed on his whatsapp status page, a national call for all Muslims to make contributions towards raising N31.5m for the building of a mosque and and Islamiya school on the same site. Such project couldn't naturally pass for the so called "make-shift" prayer place (the exact words allegedly used by the Chairman in an initial attempt to give perspective and explanations). Further to the above, this _was_ without any approval from regulatory authority or even the property developer.

12. Once the group started the illegal construction, the developer and team if security men at the estate attempted to stop the work. The group, led by the chairman of the residents association engaged the developer in heated arguments that could have degenerated into serious fracas but for the maturity of the developer and intervention of other residents.

13. Upon seeing all the above, serious concerns and protest were raised by residents at various fora. The implications of deliberate misrepresentation of the above protest by elements who want to use religion to perpetrate their selfish and individual agenda was carefully considered. In the interest of peace, concerned citizens resolved not to engage in a physical duel to stop the on-going construction but to tow the line of civilized members of society governed by the rule of law. They resorted to petitions and legal action. This was however contingent on good reasoning and civilized behaviour from the opposing group.

14. It was also said that some members of the Muslim _community_ who wish to stay anonymous _were_ opposed to the said proposed construction which is clearly in breach of civilized engagement, without due consultations or approvals and capable of plunging their families into crises for reason which in their view _was_ purely sentimental and self serving. They faulted the fact that no operational guidelines for worship activities had even been developed and discussed by all parties within the Muslim community talkless of the entire residents of the estate. It would therefore appear that there are dissenting voices even within the Muslim Community but for certain reasons best known to them, they do not wish to come out publicly for now.

15. Suffice it to say that it is said that the Chairman and exco of the Residents Association have done a very good job over the years at stabilizing the systems in the estate, managed misunderstandings among residents in a very dispassionate manner and followed laid down rules and procedure for good harmony and peaceful coexistence. Case in hand is when the exco took initiative and resisted the placement of a "container" for petty trade, initiated by one of its own. The container was removed from the estate due to inappropriateness of location and in order to preserve the layout of the estate. Another scenario occurred when the developer converted a block of flats for use as a school and shopping centre. This same exco led by the very enigmatic Chairman, resisted the developer for improper use of the block of apartments. It took serious appeal from the developer and assurances that the measure was only temporary pending completion of construction works in the estate. Residents also intervened since the school was intended primarily for their children, albeit, faulted the developer on why he didn't construct such facility earlier.

16. On the strength of the above, many residents are wondering why this same exco allowed such _anormally_ perpetrated by a section of the Muslim community to fly. Was the exco even informed of the planned "occupation" by this minority group of all Muslims? Did they officially notify the exco of their intention all along? Was the chairman an active part of the whole debacle given that he is a Muslim too and a member of the Board of Trustees of the Muslim Association? Did the chairman use his good office to properly guide and direct the said group on civilized ways to request and acquire any space in the estate? Was the chairman aware of the inappropriateness of the space being proposed for such construction? Did the Muslim community even notify the entire resident Association of their intention to register a corporate body and exist within the context of the general resident association? Given his role as Chairman, did he send a wrong signal by single handedly "attacking" the developer when he came to site to insist that the group stop work on account of criminal trespass on his property? What are the implication of public statements by the Chairman categorically stating that he is first a Muslim and is willing to tender his resignation as Chairman if the developer insist on stopping the work? Will such statements engender trust and confidence on the will and capacity of him and his exco to fair considerations? What options are available to peaceful residents in such situations? These and many more are questions begging for answers.