Ondo State Urban Renewal: Clearing the Mischaracterisation of a Policy Proposition

By Abayomi Adebayo

When responding to a highly critical issue, one must diligently examine the subject in its entirety, understand the concept, and avoid presenting self-serving interpretations or, at best, a position detached from reality. Therefore, I will not dwell excessively on Mr. Ajisafe’s rather dramatic intervention, which appears to contribute more to attention-seeking rhetoric than to substantive policy discourse.

More importantly, it is difficult to attach serious weight to lectures on accountability from an individual who, in a bid to create a misleading narrative, blatantly suggested that a Senior Advocate of Nigeria appeared in defence of an accused person before a Magistrate Court, a proposition that any reasonably informed legal practitioner knows to be untenable. Such inconsistencies do little to inspire confidence in the objectivity of his present intervention.

However, the reaction authored by Mr. Wale Obanigba regarding the recent remarks of the Ondo State Attorney General and Commissioner for Justice, Dr. Olukayode Ajulo, SAN, appears less like an objective legal critique and more like a predictable resistance to modern urban reform by individuals still mentally attached to outdated approaches to city development and property ownership.

No serious society develops by romanticising abandonment, glorifying urban decay, or defending decades-old neglected structures under the guise of constitutionalism.

The Attorney General’s message was clear, balanced, and rooted in law. At no point did he single out private citizens while excusing government properties. His position addressed the broader necessity for structured urban renewal, environmental orderliness, and strategic development across Ondo State. The attempt to distort that message into a sinister “elite land grab agenda” is therefore intellectually dishonest and unnecessarily alarmist.

It is important to state clearly that the Attorney General’s remarks were made in a lecture setting as a policy proposition aimed at addressing abandoned private properties, and not as an enacted government policy or arbitrary exercise of power. It represents a deliberate urban renewal direction rooted in public safety, environmental order, and long-term development planning. It is therefore essential to distinguish policy intent from implementation realities, and informed discourse from speculative interpretation.

Where implementation becomes necessary, it will naturally involve inter-ministerial collaboration to ensure strict compliance with due process under the Land Use Act and relevant urban and physical planning laws, including providing adequate notice, affording an opportunity for hearing, and applying transparent criteria. It is therefore misleading to drag the Governor, Dr. Lucky Orimisan Aiyedatiwa, into a lecture-based policy discussion, and such misrepresentation suggests, at best, a misreading of the context by both Mr. Ajisafe and Mr. Obanigba, despite the two of them being lawyers.

The constitutional mandate of an Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice under Section 211 of the Constitution is to uphold the rule of law, promote public interest, and prevent abuse of legal process. That mandate includes engaging proactively with policy ideas that enhance order, safety, and sustainable development.

Ondo State, in recent times, has not experienced such consistency in having an Attorney General who so deliberately engages the public with a clear intent to educate, clarify, and demystify complex legal and policy issues. Dr. Ajulo represents a style of public legal engagement that goes beyond technical office duties into deliberate public enlightenment, often situating legal discourse within broader governance and developmental context.

However, perception is often shaped along two broad lines: interpretation and understanding. How any public official is viewed ultimately depends on the standpoint of the observer and the depth of their appreciation of governance and policy dynamics. To some, such engagement may appear bold or unconventional; to others, it reflects clarity, confidence, and intellectual responsibility.

It is in this context that the Attorney General’s public posture should be understood, not as mediocrity, but as a reflection of a mind operating within national and even global standards of legal thought and public policy engagement. Such a profile is not accidental, it is earned through years of legal practice, intellectual consistency, and exposure to governance systems beyond the local sphere.

The reason the Attorney General’s remarks have generated widespread reactions is not difficult to trace. At the lecture, Dr. Olukayode Ajulo, SAN, reiterated a long-established economic and planning reality: land, particularly in choice areas of Akure, is a highly valuable asset with significant commercial worth, with plots in prime locations reportedly valued at #50 million and above. His broader point was that abandoned or undeveloped land in such strategic areas represents not only economic waste but also a distortion of urban development potential.

In essence, his submission was anchored on the principle that land ownership is not meant to remain passive indefinitely. In the absence of unforeseen circumstances, property owners are expected to either develop their assets or explore structured partnerships with developers under mutually beneficial arrangements. This, he argued, reflects how modern cities grow, through active utilisation of valuable land resources rather than prolonged abandonment.

It is this framing of land as an active economic and developmental asset, rather than a static possession, that has largely triggered the ongoing public discourse and varying interpretations of his remarks.

Urban renewal is a global reality. Every progressive city periodically reviews its planning framework to address abandoned buildings, environmental hazards, uncompleted structures, security risks, and economic stagnation. Ondo State cannot remain trapped in the physical and economic mindset of the 1980s while other cities evolve into modern investment destinations.

There is also an important moral responsibility attached to property ownership. Development approval is not merely a licence to acquire land and abandon it indefinitely. The Holy Scriptures themselves reinforce the principle of preparation and responsibility before embarking on projects. Luke 14:28 says “For which of you, intending to build a tower, sitteth not down first, and counteth the cost, whether he have sufficient to finish it?” In fact, one Yoruba proverb rooted in Ifa wisdom says “A kí n kọ́ ilé ká má ka owó àjà” (One does not build a house without counting the cost of the roof.)

This timeless principle speaks directly to the culture of speculative construction and abandoned projects that have become eyesores across many urban centres. While it is acknowledged that unforeseen hardship such as economic downturns, family disputes, litigation, or financing challenges may arise, such difficulties cannot become a permanent justification for allowing strategic urban corridors to degenerate into blight, insecurity, and environmental neglect.

What the Attorney General advocated was lawful redevelopment through due process, stakeholder engagement, planning regulations, and constitutional safeguards. He expressly referenced compliance with existing laws and compensation mechanisms where applicable. This is the exact opposite of arbitrary confiscation.

Curiously, Mr. Obanigba acknowledged that the government possesses authority to enforce planning regulations, yet becomes uncomfortable the moment enforcement is discussed in practical terms. This contradiction reveals a deeper resistance not to illegality, but to change itself.

His attempt to equate urban renewal efforts with “politics of liquidation” is equally misplaced. Public discourse on the management of government assets should not be weaponised to obstruct legitimate developmental reforms. These are separate issues. If concerns exist regarding state assets, there are established legal and democratic channels for accountability. However, such concerns cannot nullify the necessity of enforcing planning laws or restoring order to a rapidly expanding city such as Akure.

It is equally important to respond to the perspective advanced by Mr. Ajisafe, which, while framed as an institutional concern, attempts to shift the debate away from urban renewal into an internal audit of government performance. While governance accountability is always valid, it must not be conflated with enforcement paralysis.

It is not contradictory for the government to pursue internal reforms while simultaneously enforcing compliance standards on private citizens. The existence of abandoned public projects does not invalidate the legal or moral basis for addressing abandoned private properties. Governance is a continuous process of correction and improvement, not a prerequisite of institutional perfection before lawful action can be taken.

Even more revealing is the suggestion that abandoned private structures should enjoy indefinite immunity simply because the government itself has incomplete projects. Such reasoning would institutionalise disorder. Governance cannot function on a logic of mutual neglect; it must function on enforcement, standards, and progressive correction.

On the proposal concerning the College of Agriculture, the Attorney General merely advanced a developmental idea worthy of public consideration. Modern agricultural institutions require expansive land for mechanised farming, research, livestock management, agro-industrial innovation, and large-scale practical training. This is not controversial, it is developmental common sense.

The real danger to Ondo State is not urban renewal. The real danger is the mindset that every attempt at reform must be politicised, misconstrued, or viewed through a lens of suspicion rather than constructive engagement.

Ondo State deserves modern infrastructure, cleaner cities, organised development, safer neighbourhoods, and economically productive urban spaces. Achieving that vision will require courage, enforcement, and sometimes difficult but necessary conversations.

Urban renewal is not expropriation. Development is not oppression. And enforcing lawful planning standards is not an attack on private property. It is simply governance.

• Adebayo is Technical Adviser to the Attorney General and Commissioner for Justice, Ondo State.

(C) CITY LAWYER Magazine. All rights reserved. To join our Channel, click here. Click here to join our WhatsApp chatroom. Contact us at citylawyermag@gmail.com or 081-3838-0083.