By TPL Umar Shuaibu
There are many germane and contemporary arguments in the professional and academic cycle, with due respect also to the Housing Development Advocacy platform of the African International Housing Show (AIHS). One of such discussions was the assertion that there was an undue foreign influence and values in the content of the Abuja plan, which affects the product as it is today. This was because the International Planning Associates that produced the Master Plan was a foreign firm. Another misunderstood aspect was the record speed of 18 months from the engagement of the firm to the completion of the assignment. That period was not enough for the production of a plan of such magnitude.
Not surprisingly, this belief is not shared by those involved in the plan implementation from the initial stage of the Abuja development. This was due to their firsthand knowledge of the process and due diligence undertaken by the FCDA in the plan production and subsequent implementation. Many were not aware of the modus operandi and the involvement of prominent Nigerian professionals and statesmen, not foreign, and their input to ensure the domestication of the plan and success of the assignment within the stipulated period. A list of 11 FCDA Board Members, 27 Members of the Technical Assessment Panel constituted by the FCDA, and 4 Members of the International Review Panel were named and acknowledged by the IPA in the Report. The FCDA Staff Members were also acknowledged.
These should emphasize the great efforts made to domesticate the plan, against the erroneous belief that we had entirely surrendered the plan production to the foreign firm to determine how the Nigerian Capital City should be. Ab initio, the time frame and the terms of reference, including the expected population of the FCC and other desirables, were given to the IPA as terms of reference for their assignment by the FCDA. In other words, it was not the IPA that determined the projected population as some people may believe.
During his presentation at the Abuja at 30 Celebration in 2006, the late Prof. Akin Mabogunje mentioned that he spent 2 years as the head of 12 professionals between 1976 and 1977 in Suleja at the beginning of the Abuja development. That was when the Ecological Survey was being prepared, preparatory to the engagement of any of the qualified consultants to prepare the plan. Almost all necessary data and information from individual research and government institutions to guide the production of the New Federal Capital City plan were assembled and made available to the IPA for the success of their assignment.
Also, the initial FCDA Board visited many world cities, including Canberra and Brasilia, which had similar projects and were adequately guided. Irrespective of the firm to be engaged, not only the IPA that won the bid, almost all the necessary data for the project were handy before the engagement.
Let us not forget that other sister African countries that started similar projects earlier than Nigeria, up to date, could not make our type of achievement. Truly, all plans are human; therefore, not perfect. However, some comments would be needless. Rather than faulting the speedy time frame taken to deliver the plan and the present level of achievement, what IPA and the FCDA team deserve is great commendation.
Prior to the submission of the final report on 15th February 1979, six previous reports were submitted. The first report was the Program. These included the population, employment, and general land use requirements associated with the new capital through the year 2000.
The second report was Site Selection. This contained a description and analysis of the natural features of the Federal Capital Territory and the comparison of these features with the requirements associated with the New Capital City on the Gwagwa plains in the northeastern portion of the Federal Capital Territory.
The third report was the draft regional plan. It described the recommendations for the allocation of the resources of the Federal Capital Territory in support of the New Federal Capital, as well as the recommended future use of land required by the capital city itself. Further, it defined those needs of the new Capital City which are not capable of being supported from resources within the Federal Capital Territory.
A supplementary report presented the Concept Plan for the new City. This was the linear arc form, with dual development corridors focusing on the Central Area, combining the advantages of flexibility, efficiency, and site adaptability.
The fourth report was the Draft Capital City Master Plan. This developed the basic concept in terms of a long-range staged plan and program for major functional systems, land use, and design features of the new Federal Capital City. This plan and report were carefully reviewed by the FCDA Board and staff, as well as by the National and International Expert Panels. Relevant Ministries/Departments and State Governments also submitted review comments.
There was also the Logistics Plan. This developed the most cost-effective strategy to ensure that the FCDA’s timetable could be met. The logistics studies scheduled construction, including estimates of the needed labor, materials, equipment, and facilities.
To be continued.
