Expert Analysis: Challenges in Land Administration Across FCT and Nigerian States

By Dr. Nafisat Makinde

Recent disputes over land in the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) have brought attention to challenges in Nigeria’s land administration system. According to Engr Akeju Olagbaju, a retired Federal Director of Rural Development, these conflicts reveal systemic weaknesses from the federal level to local governments.

“The verbal bursts between the Honorable Minister of Federal Capital Territory and a junior military officer on a disputed land dominated the media space. It is rather unfortunate and this has triggered many debates, including trading blames on who is right or wrong,” Engr Akeju said.

From his perspective, “our Land Administration is defective at all levels of governance. The Land Use Decree, now an amended law, is helpless to check conflicts but has also fueled massive corruption in land administration.”

Engr Akeju explained the legal framework: “All land is vested in the hands of the governor, who is the chief executive of a state. The Federal Government does not own land within any state except the Federal Capital Territory (FCT). The FCT land is not vested on the Minister but the President of the country. The Honorable Minister of FCT is only performing a delegated job, and any operation or action on land administration must be under the directive of the President.”

Reflecting on the recent incident, he observed, “The Honorable Minister Wike’s action gave me concern as a Minister of the Federal Republic. He had no business going out with a task force on such an assignment that could have been delegated to a relevant agency under his supervision. He absolutely had no reason except there is a personal interest beyond official commitment. He was subjected to this embarrassment by his aides who failed to advise him that it wasn’t his direct responsibility to be at that site physically.”

The expert highlighted broader issues in land management: “Land Administration in the Federal Capital Territory is weak, the practice is archaic, and possibly corrupted. No matter the Minister’s intention, it would be misinterpreted. Urgent reform is necessary to remove ambiguity in land titles, poor boundary demarcation, overlapping of titles, and insecure tenure for allottees. The insecurity in title ownership is the primary source of conflict and corruption within the system.”

Regarding equitable allocation of land, Engr Akeju questioned: “By the way of equity and fairness, if a land is fairly and justifiably allocated to an individual via successful application or allotment, what is it that has changed that will make the allottee suffer revocation? Why does the Certificate of Occupancy change with different Ministers or different administrations? These are questions begging for answer. Perhaps a sound reform is justified to address this.”

He proposed a policy change to reduce misuse of land: “The concept of ‘Use or lose’ is archaic. I will advocate for a ‘Surrender and Re-Apply’ system in which a title holder, for any reason or inability to develop within a time frame, returns the title and is guaranteed a replacement whenever he applies and has the resources to commence development. It is a novel idea that could check all evils and malfeasance in land administration.”

He concluded with a warning on the importance of fairness: “Land is undoubtedly a valuable asset, but it shouldn’t be used as an instrument of conflict, extortion, political victimization, and above all, corrupt practices,” Engr Akeju said.