Abia Host Communities Protest Proposed Airport Land Size, Accuse Government Of Land Grabbing
Residents strongly oppose the state government’s plan to acquire 1,025 hectares of land for the project.
Tension is rising in the host communities of the proposed Abia Airport in Nsulu, Isiala-Ngwa North Local Government Area.
Residents strongly oppose the state government’s plan to acquire 1,025 hectares of land for the project.
The communities, citing concerns over land grabbing, are calling for a reduction in the size of the proposed acquisition.
Representatives of the host communities highlighted in a statement the devastating impact of losing such a vast expanse of land.
They warned that the displacement would leave them with insufficient land for farming, housing, and other essential needs, ultimately threatening their livelihoods and economic stability.
They fear the move could increase the region’s poverty, unemployment, and insecurity.
The communities pointed out that the proposed land size for the Abia Airport significantly exceeds that of nearby airports, such as those in Owerri, Ebonyi, and Enugu, which occupy between 250 and 360 hectares.
“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,” they stated.
They also cited the Ninoy Aquino International Airport in Manila, Philippines, which, despite handling 48 million passengers annually, was built on just 440 hectares. It houses multiple terminal buildings, hangar bays, and a 6-kilometer runway.
As a compromise, the protesting communities have proposed reducing the land acquisition to no more than 400 hectares.
They argue that this adjustment would allow for the airport’s development while safeguarding the livelihood and cultural heritage of the host communities.
The lack of transparency surrounding the project has further fueled their concerns.
The host communities have called on the government to provide the proposed site’s survey plan, map coordinates, and control points.
They argue that access to this information is critical in assessing the land requirements and ensuring fair engagement in the planning process.
In addition, the communities have strongly objected to the state government’s appointment of representatives on their behalf without their consent.
They insist that landowners should be allowed to choose their representatives to ensure their voices are heard properly.
Allegations have emerged that some appointed representatives were unknown to the landowners, further exacerbating concerns over accountability and transparency.
While the host communities do not oppose the airport project itself, they are firmly against the inclusion of commercial projects such as hotels, housing estates, and schools on their land.
They argue that such ventures do not fall under “overriding public interest,” which would justify the compulsory acquisition of their property.
Instead, they have offered alternative suggestions to the government for locating these commercial developments elsewhere.
Adding to the controversy, the communities have reminded the government of an existing court order to halt further action on the airport project pending the resolution of their lawsuit.
They accuse the government of disregarding the rule of law by continuing with the project despite the court’s directive, which they claim sets a dangerous precedent for governance and justice in the state.
The protesting communities reiterated their call for dialogue with the government to reach a mutually beneficial resolution.
They said, “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.”
