Borno NNPP Chieftain Sues Borno State Govt Over Demolition Of Shopping Mall

DAMATURU – The former 2023 Senatorial Candidate (Borno Central) on the platform of the New Nigeria Peoples Party, NNPP, Hon. Attom Magira has sued Borno State Government over the demolition of his multi million naira shopping mall in the state.

The demolished property is a four-story commercial shopping complex and a multi-purpose hall located at Sir Kashim Ibrahim Road, opposite state low-cost housing estate, Maiduguri.

Speaking through his Lawyer and Human Rights Activist on Saturday in a press statement, Hamza N. Dantani Esq of Kayode Ajulo & co. Castle of law,
Garki -Abuja said, Hon. Attom Magira, who is a law-abiding citizen, had sought the protection of the court as the last hope of the commoner by instituting legal proceedings at the Borno State High Court in Alhaji M. Attom Magira v. Borno State Urban Planning and Development Board (BOSUPDB); Suit No. BOHC/MG/CV/8/2025 to prevent the unlawful demolition of his property until the court decides whether or not he breached any town planning rules.

He alleged that the demolition exercise was masterminded by the Borno State Government under the direct instruction of the present administration under the leadership of Governor Babagana Zulum.

Although, Borno State Government has not officially make it public on why it carried out the exercise, our Correspondent observed that this demolition was not the first time, as Government has carried out similar demolition of illegal structures and residential buildings for public interest.

But the Human Rights Lawyer said “the demolition of his client’s Plaza is not just an attack on one man’s investment but a blatant disregard for the rule of law, judicial authority, and the economic future of Borno State.

“This brazen act, driven by political vendetta rather than lawful governance, exposes the alarming level of impunity that has become the trademark of present administration.

“Hon. Attom Magira is the lawful owner of the property described above, having been granted a statutory right of occupancy over the land and having duly obtained all necessary permits from the relevant state government agency, Borno State Urban Planning and Development Board (BOSUPDB).

“In compliance with all applicable laws, he paid all required fees and was issued development permit no. BSUPDB/DC/2194 over his statutory right of occupancy no. BO/86138. It is pretty interesting that during the entire construction phase of the property, BOSUPDB never raised any concerns about town planning violations.

“Beyond personal gain, Hon. Attom Magira’s investment was a source of livelihood for many people in Borno State, employing indigenes and residents in various capacities during construction and providing commercial space that would have boosted local businesses. In a state ravaged by Boko Haram terrorism, insecurity, and economic crisis, such an investment should have been welcomed and protected—not torn down in the name of political persecution.

“It was only after the completion of the building that the same BOSUPDB, acting under political influence, suddenly revoked the development permit issued to Hon. Attom Magira and gave him an impossible ultimatum: remove the “fifth floor” of your property or the whole property and demolish the multi-purpose hall within seven days or risk complete demolition, even though the property in question is a four-story building”. Dantani Stated.

More so he said: “The justification provided in BOSUPDB’s notice of revocation to justify this draconian directive cited provisions of section 51 of the Borno State Urban Planning and Development Board Law, conveniently overlooking another provision of the same law that grants affected individuals the right to appeal such revocations. Hon. Attom Magira sought legal counsel, and his lawyers informed him that he had the right to appeal a revocation of the development permit.

“Consequently, Attom Magira invoked Section 52 of the Borno State Urban Planning and Development Board Law, which allows an appeal against the decision of BOSUPDB, a procedure he duly activated and followed within the stipulated time. This appeal was served on BOSUPDB, but they did not respond. This step should have automatically stayed the execution of the revocation and demolition of his property, as is the law.

“The position of the law is clear: where a statutory provision stipulates a method or manner of discharging responsibility, that method must be strictly employed, and no other process must be adopted; see INEC & Ors. (1999) 8 NWLR (Pt. 614). In other words, where a law, like the Borno State Urban Planning and Development Board Law in this case, lays down a procedure for doing a thing, there should be no other method.

“What is more, under his constitutional right to fair hearing jealously protected by section 36 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), a citizen shall be allowed to state his case and defend his constitutional right to immovable property, guaranteed by section 44 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended).

“In addition to the appeal process mentioned above, Hon. Attom Magira, as a law-abiding citizen, equally sought the protection of the court as the last hope of the commoner by instituting legal proceedings at the Borno State High Court in Alhaji M. Attom Magira v. Borno State Urban Planning and Development Board (BOSUPDB); Suit No. BOHC/MG/CV/8/2025 to prevent the unlawful demolition of his property until the court decides whether or not he breached any town planning rules. The court duly adjourned the matter to the 22nd of April 2025 for a hearing, and BOSUPDB was served with the processes and the hearing notice of the next adjourned date.

“In any democratic society governed by the rule of law, this would mean that the government must hold off any further action until the court determines the rights of parties, as the constitution empowers the institution to settle disputes between individuals and institutions.

The courts have consistently held that actions taken on pending legal proceedings that purport to prejudge the issues that are to be tried and destroy the res are intrinsically objectionable as constituting a usurpation of the proper functions of the court, see Bello v. A.G, Lagos State (2007) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1017) 115,” the Human Rights Activist said.