Peter Obi condemns ASPAMDA demolition injustice

Peter Obi condemns ASPAMDA demolition injustice

Former Labour Party presidential candidate Peter Obi has condemned the recent demolitions at the ASPAMDA section of the Lagos Trade Fair Complex. He described the tearing down of plazas belonging to traders as “unjust, economically destructive, and a test of impunity, justice and compassion.” He insisted many traders had acquired what they believed to be valid approvals for their structures and urged all levels of government to act with fairness and humanity, especially given that many affected people had invested heavily, often by taking loans.

Obi visited the demolition site alongside several senators, members of the House of Representatives, and other political figures, where he expressed his admiration for the composure shown by the traders in spite of their losses. He called for a thorough investigation into the demolition and for safeguards to prevent similar incidents in the future. Obi emphasized that in a society aiming for progress, the dignity of citizens and protection of enterprise are essential.

In response, the Lagos State Government rejected Obi’s claims. Officials said the demolished structures had no proper planning approvals. They pointed out that a general amnesty to regularise unapproved buildings had been declared the previous year and extended several times, but the owners in ASPAMDA allegedly did not comply. The government further asserted that the Trade Fair Complex Management Board, while responsible for allocating spaces and managing tenancies, does not have the legal power to grant construction approvals. They cited the Nigerian Urban and Regional Planning Act (1992) and a 2003 Supreme Court judgment affirming that building regulation and planning falls under state authority. Government also alleged that planning officials were obstructed when they tried to inspect the properties.

This controversy highlights deep tensions between enforcing regulatory norms and safeguarding the investments and livelihoods of traders. It raises questions about due process, communication of regulations, and how authorities and citizens negotiate compliance in situations involving large financial stakes. As debates continue, the affected traders’ financial losses and the legal interpretations of what counts as valid approval are likely to dominate any investigations.