Thursday, 28th March 2024
To guardian.ng
Search

Land Use Act not effective says Fashola

The Minister of Power, Works and Housing, Mr Babatunde Fashola, has said that the Land Use Act was not defective as it was serving the purpose for which it was enacted.
Pius Utomi EKPEI/AFP/Getty Image

Pius Utomi EKPEI/AFP/Getty Image

The Minister of Power, Works and Housing, Mr Babatunde Fashola, has said that the Land Use Act was not defective as it was serving the purpose for which it was enacted.

Fielding questions at the News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) Forum in Abuja, Fashola however noted that the administration of the law was its greatest challenge.
He therefore said that any review of the Act should be done at the State level because land administration is in the Residual List.

The minister explained that there were no plans to amend the Land Use Act of 1978, saying land administration is the exclusive preserve of the states.
“This is so because land is a state matter. If anybody is going to amend the Act it should be the state governor who can amend it or the Minister of Federal Capital Territory because the Federal Government does not own land.
“The Federal Government does not own land except the one it acquires from the state or granted by the state.
“In deciding whether to amend the Act or not to amend it, the anomaly of having the Act as part of constitution as a one-off should be put into consideration.

“They put the Act in the constitution to protect it,’’ said Fashola.
He said that in the history of the Act, there were conflicts, communal clashes and deaths that occurred while people were fighting over land but seem to have been forgotten.
“That was what led to the Land Use Act, and the interesting thing about that law is that every section has been litigated at least up to the Court of Appeal or Supreme Court, so everybody knows what that law means.’’
The minister emphasised that there was no empirical evidence that the Land Use Act was the problem hindering access to land.

“Some people hold that view but there is no empirical study and evidence to prove that that is the problem.
“There is access to land administration challenges, there is cost of doing business relating to cost of perfecting transaction relating to land.
“But I do not think that the evidence that I have seen suggest that it is the Land Use Act that is the problem,’’ the minister said.
Fashola noted that the problem hindering easy access to land could be pegged to the administration of the Land Use Act, adding that one could automate the process of getting consent over land.

“If you want to give consent over land there must be survey, geographic information system mapping, auto photo and all of the technologies available to help the administration of the Land Use Act.
“Because you can see the land on screen, you can verify the particulars and therefore processing the approvals is easier.’’

Fashola recalled that during his tenure as Lagos state governor one of the things his administration did was to automate the system of signing Certificate of Occupancy (C of O).
He said this was because they used to carry the “yellow files’’ everywhere but once they put all the yellow files to a much more electronic document for online transaction it became easier and efficient.
According to him, states that have high turnover will seem inefficient if the land documents are not automated.

2 Comments

  • Author’s gravatar

    Dear sir, I respectfully beg to differ on this. However I will restrict my observations to just one aspect of the Land Use Decree 1978. The land use decree was brought about by the Federal Government (although one could argue that this was during the military regime) but vested powers and administration in the states. However sir, the modus operandi of this decree is not at the behest of the state government but the Federal Government. I will refer to the compensation as aspect of land acquisition for overriding public interest as an example. This is at the depreciated replacement cost of the land acquired instead of the Open Market or Reinstatement Value and then discounted by excluding compulsory purchase factor. Yet when purchased for development the reverse is usually the case. Using this example as a template, no state can on its own willingly change the basis of land compensation. At the time of promulgating this decree (I stand to be corrected), it would suffice to say that there was no input from the states (if we check and see its impact with landownership in the southern region for example). Based on this, apart from the fact that sections 40 of the constitution(again I stand to be corrected) forbids any other laws to run against it, the Land Use Decree would not have been co-opted into the constitution. Sir the constitution is not a product of the state, it is at the behest of the Federal Government to be observed and upheld by all Nigerian citizens and the states.

  • Author’s gravatar

    Further more sir, I also think that is about time the Land Use Decree is reviewed as it is now 4decades ago since it was established. The Nigerian population then was not half its size now and there was not pressure with the demand for land then. I can only hope my unsolicited contribution is read and not misread nor misunderstood.