The Landmark vs Lagos-Calabar Coastal Highway saga in Nigeria highlights a clash between development goals and existing infrastructure, raising crucial legal questions about land ownership, property rights, and the government’s power of eminent domain. The crux of the matter lies in the conflict between Landmark Beach Resort, a thriving tourism hub in Lagos, and the government’s plan to construct a 700km coastal road, a project of significant economic importance. The planned route of the highway encroaches on Landmark’s property, prompting the government to issue demolition notices.
Setting the Stage
The Lagos-Calabar Coastal Highway was envisioned as a transformative project to improve connectivity and boost economic development along Nigeria’s coastline. However, its proposed route traverses environmentally sensitive areas, including properties owned by Landmark, a leading real estate developer renowned for its investments in eco-tourism and property development. Landmark has raised serious concerns about inadequate consultation, potential environmental damage, and violations of their property rights.
The Legal Framework
At the heart of this dispute are several legal provisions and principles:
Environmental Protection Laws:
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Act (Cap E12 LFN 2004): Section 2(1) mandates that an environmental impact assessment must be conducted for any proposed project likely to have significant environmental effects. Landmark argues that the highway’s EIA was superficial and did not adequately address critical concerns or involve key stakeholders as required under Sections 7 and 25 of the Act.
Constitutional Provisions:
Right to Property (Section 44(1) of the 1999 Constitution): This guarantees every citizen’s right to property and stipulates that no property shall be compulsorily acquired without due process and prompt payment of adequate compensation.
Right to a Healthy Environment: Although not expressly stated, this is implied under Section 20 of the Constitution, which enjoins the state to protect and improve the environment.
Eminent Domain:
The Nigerian constitution recognizes the government’s right to acquire land compulsorily for public purposes, a principle reinforced by the Land Use Act (Cap L5 LFN 2004). Sections 1 and 28 of the Act vest all land in each state in the Governor, to be held in trust and administered for the use and common benefit of all Nigerians. This legal framework empowers the government to reclaim land for projects deemed beneficial to the public, such as the Lagos-Calabar Coastal Highway.
Compensation:
While the government has the right to acquire land, Section 44(1) of the Constitution and Section 29 of the Land Use Act mandate “prompt payment of compensation” to those whose property is taken. Landmark Group, having legally acquired and developed the beachfront property since 2005, asserts that the compensation offered does not reflect the true market value of the affected properties.
Core Legal Issues
Environmental Compliance:
Landmark’s key contention is that the government’s EIA report failed to meet the statutory requirements under Sections 4 and 7 of the EIA Act, particularly in engaging affected communities and evaluating alternatives.
Adequacy of Compensation:
Landmark asserts that the compensation offered violates Section 44(1) of the Constitution and Section 29 of the Land Use Act, both of which mandate fair market valuation for acquired properties.
Procedural Transparency:
The claim includes allegations that statutory public consultation under Section 22 of the EIA Act was bypassed, undermining the participatory rights of stakeholders.
Due Diligence:
The controversy has sparked debate about the responsibility of investors to conduct thorough due diligence before acquiring property. Legal experts argue that investors should engage lawyers to perform background checks to ascertain land availability and potential government development plans. While Landmark acquired the land in 2007 before the coastal highway plans were formalized, the question of whether they could have anticipated such a development through proper due diligence remains open.
Balancing Interests:
The case underscores the need to balance the government’s development agenda with the rights of property owners. The Landmark Group argues that rerouting the highway slightly would preserve their business and minimize economic disruption. This raises questions about whether the government explored all possible alternatives before resorting to demolition.
Lessons from Judicial Precedents
Several past court decisions provide valuable insights:
Centre for Oil Pollution Watch v. NNPC (2019) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1666) 518: The Supreme Court underscored the importance of adherence to environmental laws, emphasizing that failure to conduct a proper EIA renders such projects illegal.
Adesanya v. President of Nigeria (1981) 2 NCLR 358: This case emphasized that public interest projects must comply with constitutional safeguards, including consultation and due process.
Ogunleye v. Oni (1990) 2 NWLR (Pt. 135) 745: The Court of Appeal held that inadequate compensation in compulsory acquisition cases amounts to a violation of the constitutional right to property.
Attorney General of Lagos State v. Eko Hotels Ltd (2006) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1011) 378: This case highlighted the significance of balancing public interest with the protection of private property rights, emphasizing that public authorities must act within the ambit of the law.
Broader Implications
The outcome of this case could have far-reaching effects on Nigeria’s legal and developmental landscape:
Clearer Guidelines on Eminent Domain:
More precise legal definitions of “public interest” and standardized procedures for land acquisition and compensation are necessary to ensure fairness and transparency.
Strengthening Property Rights:
This case underscores the need to protect individual property rights while pursuing development goals, ensuring that constitutional safeguards are upheld.
Enhancing Environmental Governance:
A ruling in Landmark’s favor could reinforce the necessity of comprehensive environmental assessments and inclusive stakeholder engagement for future projects.
Enhanced Transparency and Communication:
Open dialogue and consultation between the government, investors, and communities are crucial to prevent future conflicts.
Fostering Sustainable Development:
The judgment could set a precedent for integrating sustainability principles into infrastructural development, minimizing environmental and social disruption.
Conclusion
The Landmark vs. Lagos-Calabar Coastal Highway saga reflects the complex interplay between economic development, environmental stewardship, and property rights. As the courts deliberate on this contentious issue, the decision will not only shape the future of this ambitious project but also influence the broader narrative of sustainable development and legal accountability in Nigeria. This case serves as a reminder that progress must be pursued with respect for the environment and the rule of law, ensuring that no stakeholder is left behind.