The question has become increasingly important following allegations by sources familiar with the matter that some of the disputed alterations were allegedly undertaken without the consent of the relevant Area Council authorities or the FCDA zonal planning office responsible for the area.
According to information gathered by Chronicles Reporters, the controversy centres on what sources describe as an alleged “redesign” or “adjustment” of portions of an already existing layout.
Sources familiar with the planning process insist that the original layout remains the recognised planning document, while alleging that the subsequent design attributed to Gajere does not have the necessary recognition or approval from the appropriate FCDA authorities.
The most significant issue now facing the investigation is not simply whether plots were altered or sold, but whether Gajere had the legal and administrative authority to undertake such an exercise in the first place.
Sources familiar with the matter alleged that Gajere is a town planner within the FCDA system but was not, at the relevant time, the designated zonal town planner with authority to unilaterally redesign an existing approved layout.
The sources further alleged that the disputed alterations were not authorised by the relevant zonal planning office and that the Area Council was also not consulted or given the required consent before some of the changes allegedly took place.
Chronicles Reporters has not independently established the complete approval chain for the disputed layout and is seeking official records from the FCDA and other relevant authorities.
However, if the allegations are confirmed, they would raise fundamental questions about the administrative process through which an approved layout could be altered and plots subsequently marketed or allocated.
Sources Claim Dispute Within the Planning Office
The investigation has also uncovered claims that the controversy allegedly created tension among some planning officials.
Sources familiar with the matter alleged that Gajere at one point had a serious disagreement with a colleague over what the colleague considered an improper approach to the alteration of existing layouts.
The sources described the disagreement as being connected to concerns over the alleged redesign and the authority under which it was being undertaken.
Chronicles Reporters has not independently verified the details of the alleged confrontation and has not established whether any formal disciplinary complaint arose from it.
The claim, however, adds another dimension to the question of whether there was internal disagreement within the planning structure over the disputed layout.
The controversy reportedly took a more personal turn when the plot of a journalist was allegedly affected by the disputed redesign.
According to sources familiar with the incident, the journalist objected after discovering that the plot he believed he had legitimately acquired was affected by what he described as an unauthorised alteration of the layout.
The disagreement reportedly escalated into a physical confrontation between the journalist and Gajere.
The incident nevertheless illustrates the potential consequences of altering an existing layout: what may appear on paper as a planning adjustment can directly affect people who have already purchased, developed or invested in their plots.
One of the most significant claims made to Chronicles Reporters is that the layout data allegedly attributed to Gajere is not recognised by the relevant FCDA authorities as the valid approved layout for the area.
Sources familiar with the records alleged that the original FCDA-approved layout remains the recognised planning document and that the disputed subsequent design does not carry the same official status.
If this is confirmed by the FCDA, it could provide an important answer to one of the central questions surrounding the controversy:
How could plots created or altered under a disputed design subsequently become the subject of land transactions?
The newspaper is seeking documentary evidence, including the original approved layout, any alleged revised layout, approval letters, survey records and other planning documents capable of establishing the status of both versions.
Another issue requiring clarification is the terminology reportedly being used to describe the disputed changes.
Sources said some of the alterations were presented as an “adjustment” rather than an entirely new layout.
An adjustment to an existing approved layout, where permissible, would ordinarily still require the appropriate administrative and technical process. The existence of an existing approval does not, by itself, establish that an individual officer has unrestricted authority to alter it.
This is why Chronicles Reporters is asking the relevant authorities to clarify:
Who authorised the adjustment?
Who signed it?
When was it approved?
Was it entered into the official FCDA planning records?
Was the Area Council consulted where required?
And does the alleged revised layout have any official planning status?
The Human Cost of Disputed Layouts
For land purchasers, the consequences can be significant.
A person may purchase a plot, obtain documentation, begin planning construction and later discover that the plot has been moved, subdivided, overlapped with another allocation or removed entirely from the recognised layout.
That is why the dispute over Tungan Maje 2 extends beyond an argument between planners or landowners.
It concerns the integrity of the land administration system and the ability of ordinary purchasers to rely on documents presented to them as valid.
If a disputed layout is not officially recognised, then questions naturally arise over the status of transactions conducted on the basis of that layout and what remedies may be available to affected purchasers.
Gajere’s Response Still Awaited
As part of its continuing investigation, Chronicles Reporters is seeking Alhaji Adamu Gajere’s response to the allegations.
He has not, as of the time of filing, provided the newspaper with a response explaining the authority under which the alleged redesign was undertaken, whether it received FCDA approval, or whether the disputed layout data forms part of the agency’s official planning records.
The newspaper is also seeking an official response from the relevant FCDA planning authorities on the status of the disputed layout.
Chronicles Reporters will publish any substantive response from Gajere or the relevant authorities in full, subject to normal editorial standards.
The Central Question Remains
At this stage, the investigation is not about declaring anyone guilty.
It is about establishing the chain of authority.
If the original Tungan Maje 2 Layout was approved by the appropriate FCDA authorities, then any subsequent alteration raises a basic administrative question:
Who authorised the change?
And if the alleged redesign is not recognised by the FCDA, another question follows:
On what authority were plots created, altered or sold on the basis of that design?
Those questions are now at the centre of the Chronicles Reporters investigation.
The newspaper is continuing to examine the original layout plans, subsequent designs, planning records, survey documents, petitions and accounts from affected landowners and officials.
Further findings will be published as the investigation progresses.