By Tijjani Sarki
It is with deep concern and a profound sense of civic responsibility that I respond to the recent press release issued by Pluck Global Construction Company regarding the proposed concession of a substantial portion of land within Federal Government College, Kano. Beyond the polished assurances and technical justifications lies a matter that touches the very soul of public trust, institutional heritage, and the collective conscience of our society. I feel obliged to add my voice to that of the old students and other critical stakeholders, while also expressing serious concern regarding the implications this arrangement may have on the school’s future expansion projects.
This is not merely about land. It is about legacy, about the sanctity of a national institution, and about the obligation we owe to future generations who deserve to inherit not diminished assets,but strengthened foundations.
While the Company attempts to justify the arrangement under the framework of a Public-Private Partnership (PPP), its response raises more concerns than assurances, and leaves several critical issues either insufficiently addressed or deliberately glossed over.
At the heart of the matter is the proposed concession of approximately 40% of the College’s total land area,a decision of far-reaching implications for the heritage, future expansion, environmental balance, and overall integrity of one of Nigeria’s foremost unity colleges. The characterization of such a vast portion of institutional land as merely “underutilised” is, at best, subjective and, at worst, a convenient pretext for a transaction whose long-term consequences remain unclear.
The justification that this concession is in exchange for infrastructural development valued at over ₦8 billion further invites scrutiny. Given prevailing economic realities, inflationary trends, and the dynamic nature of project costing, the assertion that such an agreement is not subject to review or adjustment raises legitimate questions about transparency, fairness, and value-for-money. Who determined this valuation, and on what basis should it remain static despite changing economic conditions?
Furthermore, while regulatory approvals from bodies such as the Infrastructure Concession Regulatory Commission (ICRC) are cited, mere compliance with procedural requirements does not equate to public acceptability, stakeholder consent, or ethical soundness. Due process must go beyond paperwork, it must reflect inclusiveness, accountability, and sensitivity to institutional legacy.
Of particular concern is the underlying rationale for situating a commercial or quasi-commercial land-swap arrangement within the premises of a functioning educational institution. This naturally leads to a fundamental question:
Why must such a project be tied to land within the school environment?
If indeed the Company possesses the technical and financial capacity it claims, why has it not sought to execute similar developments on virgin land outside the state capital, where there would be no conflict with an academic setting, historical legacy, or public sentiment?
The insistence on acquiring a substantial portion of land within a prestigious federal institution inevitably fuels skepticism regarding the true motives behind the arrangement. Is the primary objective the development of educational infrastructure, or the strategic acquisition of high-value urban land under the guise of a PPP?
Additionally, the assurance that possession of the land will only occur upon project completion, while noted, does not sufficiently mitigate concerns about the eventual permanent transfer of public institutional assets into private hands. What guarantees exist to protect future generations from irreversible decisions taken today?
Equally troubling is the apparent disconnect between the scale of the concession and the voice of critical stakeholders. Institutions such as Federal Government College, Kano, are not merely physical spaces, they are national assets with deep historical and emotional significance. Any decision affecting such institutions must command broad-based consensus,not just regulatory approval.
In light of the foregoing, several key questions remain unanswered:
What independent valuation was conducted to justify the exchange of 40% of institutional land for the proposed developments?
Why is the agreement insulated from review despite obvious economic fluctuations?
What alternative sites were considered, and why were they deemed unsuitable?
What long-term safeguards exist to protect the school’s territorial integrity and future expansion needs?
To what extent were stakeholders, including alumni and the host community, consulted prior to finalizing this agreement?
Until these questions are satisfactorily addressed, the concerns raised by stakeholders remain valid, urgent, and compelling.
This is a defining moment. We must decide whether public institutions exist for the common good or as convenient instruments for opaque transactions. Silence, in this instance, would amount to complicity.
We therefore call on all relevant authorities to act with courage and conscience,revisit this agreement, open it to public scrutiny, and ensure that decisions of such magnitude are guided not only by technical compliance, but by transparency, equity, and the enduring public interest.
Tijjani Sarki
*Good Governance Advocate and Public Policy Analyst*
responsivecitizensinitiative@gmail.com