Let the Land Use Act be

The Committee, chaired by retired General A. B. Mamman, recommended the abrogation of the Land Use Act to allow for laws ‘which should and must vest ownership of land in the hands of those with customary right of ownership, subject to the rights of states to register titles and provide guidelines for land transactions within […]

The Committee, chaired by retired General A. B. Mamman, recommended the abrogation of the Land Use Act to allow for laws ‘which should and must vest ownership of land in the hands of those with customary right of ownership, subject to the rights of states to register titles and provide guidelines for land transactions within their jurisdictions’. The Committee noted that part of what it said was the confusion created by the Act included having a federal legislation than can only be implemented by states and local governments, even though it cannot be modified by them to suit local realities. It said this amounted to a ‘lack of ownership of processes and absence of drive for effective implementation’.
The report observed that although Nigeria is richly endowed with land and natural resources, land resources have been economically underutilized. Only about 3% of the 923, 768sq km of land in Nigeria is, according to the report, documented, titled and registered.
The Committee recommended that if government must compulsorily acquire land for public purposes, adequate compensation and resettlement of the people affected must be completed prior to entry in to the land in question; and that ‘if after ten years of government entry, the land is not utilized for the purpose it was acquired, it should revert to the original owner and the compensation forfeited by government’.
The Committee in its report also called for the establishment of a National Land Commission to promote harmony in land administration in states; create and maintain a national land databank in collaboration with states; and initiate investigations either on its own or upon receipt of a complaint into ‘present and historical injustices’ and to recommend appropriate redress. The report is among several others to be debated at plenary when the Conference resumes its sittings from this week.
The Committee’s recommendations are not persuasive, and do not make any compelling argument for the repeal of the Land Use Act.  Clearly, the contentious issue of control of natural resource deposits in communities seems to be the principal motive behind this demand and is simply about their ownership. It also stems from the perception of unequal patterns of development across the regions. The late signing of Certificates of Occupancy (C of Os) to land beneficiaries by state governors, is another reason prompting calls for the abolition of the Act.
The Land Use Act certainly ended the chaos that attended acquisition of land by government for public use. Before its enactment, the land tenure system, particularly in the southern part of the country, inhibited development because the customary owners made it difficult for government and the private sector to site industries, research centres and warehouses in places considered most suitable and of benefit to larger communities.
Nearly four decades since it was first promulgated, the Act may be due for review; but certainly not jettisoned as the Committee suggested. The benefits of retaining this law outweigh, by far, any perceived advantages that its repeal is envisaged may offer. A more reasonable recommendation to make is for the Act to be disentangled from the Constitution and to become like any other legislation, subject to normal procedures for amendments whenever the need for these arise. The government should be forthcoming in the prompt payment of compensation if any piece of land is taken from its rightful owners. In the case of farmlands that belong to natives, government should issue C of Os to farmers to enable them use as collaterals to enjoy loan facilities for agricultural and other productive purposes.