A couple of weeks back Nigeria’s Minister of Housing and Urban Development, came out with a slight suggestion that one of the statutes that deprive people in the country of property rights is on its way into the trash can. The Minister hinted that the nation’s controversial land law, the Land Use Act, might be “reviewed” or even “repealed”.
Though bereft of reliability, if the repeal promise is met, individuals may regain land ownership rights. Promulgated on March 29, 1978 by the Military government of Olusegun Obasanjo, the Land Use Act, subsequently incorporated into the 1979 and 1999 Constitutions, nationalized all the country’s total land of about ninety one million hectares, and abolished all private ownership of land.
The law vested in Governor of each state in the Federation all land “comprised in the territory” of the State. He holds the land “in trust” and administers it “for the use and common benefit of all Nigerians”. Also given to him are powers to allocate land and revoke Certificates of Occupancy (C of O) for “overriding Public interest”.
However, some people take the land law repeal promise with a grain of salt. Their view is that only fools believe Nigerian politicians have the courage to throw away a law that gives expropriation powers. The Guardian, in one of its editorials, wonders “how the Minister or, the Federal Government, will have the Act reviewed or repealed with the speed with which it was entrenched in the 1979 and 1999 Constitutions.” The paper noted that the alteration or repeal of the Act “Might be an uphill task.” Reinforcing this lack of faith is the absence of sincere efforts by government to correct some of the evident wrongs in the Constitution since the return to civil rule.
Strong grounds exist to knock the Act off the Constitution. Intended as a socialist measure, the law aims at ensuring egalitarian and equitable distribution of land. But egalitarialism has always been an immoral tool in the hand of the State to expropriate what some people sweat to achieve. Seeking equal shares for all and elimination of the gap between the better off and the worse off, egalitarialism involves unethical seizure and redistribution of property.
In Principles of A Free Society, Dr. Nigel Ashford advises that egalitarialism should be rejected as a desirable goal. He argues that inequality of material possessions is natural and that it conforms with the natural condition of man. Changing the natural inequality of man “requires unnatural and coercive act.” He argues further that “it would require a massive denial of individual liberty and massive state interference in people’s lives.” His other ground for the rejection of egalitarialism is that those who have the power to decide who gets what would use the power in their favour.
He finds a supporter in F.A. Harper who posits that common ownership is impossible and that “the dictator alone holds the right of ownership, because he alone does with it as he wishes.” To him “the confiscation of private property is Civilization in retreat.”
Another truth is that the land law which objective is equity is inconsistent with the principle of fairness and justice. Where is the fairness and justice in a law that takes what belongs to you and undeservedly gives to another person? As The Guardian points out, the law has ensured festering of “rank injustices to original landowners.” Evidence of gross abuse of the Act abounds. Political office holders and government officials employ the Act to allocate land to themselves, their wives, children and cronies. It has also become a weapon in the hands of politicians to witch-hunt some political enemies.
With powers to revoke Certificates of Occupancy (C of Os) for “Overriding public interest’, land that belongs to poor people are being seized by government and allocated to government officials. Moroko in Lagos State readily comes to mind. The State Government claimed they wanted to “save” the people from “the slum” and ordered that their houses be pulled down. It was later discovered that safety was not the multivation but greed for the take-over of Maroko land. The land has been allocated to the cronies of the people in government.
Recently, Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Mallam Nasir El-Rufai, announced that he had withdrawn all Certificates of Occupancy (C of Os) of all land in the Federal Capital Territory (FCT). The Minister ascribed the source of his powers to withdraw the C of Os to the Land Use Act. The implication of this is that all those who have land in Abuja have lost their rights of ownership. This underscores the fact that extremely powerful government is dangerous to the liberty of individuals.
The land law is a bad law that does not deserve to remain in the country’s Statute book. It encourages corruption and injustice. It fails to take into account the assertion of Palmer that “land is often all that people have as bottomline for livelihood security.” Those who encourage the continued existence of the law ignore the view of Ishola Williams that land rights are important part of social economic rights which must be constitutionalised.
The law has failed to achieve the objectives it is intended to achieve. Egalitarialism is not an achievable goal; instead of ensuring equity, it allows injustice to land owners to fester; instead of reducing controversies over land, it causes them to increase. Besides, the law is an enemy of liberty and property rights. It does not deserve to live.
The power of consent and revocation Governor gets from the law is subject to abuse. It takes years for a person to obtain C of O. This is possible if the person knows the politician ruling the state as Governor. If you find yourself on the other side of the devise, it may be difficult to get this important document, though it could be revoked anytime.
- Oyewamide is with the Institute of Public Policy Analysis in Lagos , Nigeria