As President Muhamadu Buhari takes charge, there is no doubt that the new administration will appreciate the expectations of the populace. It is pertinent as land solution providers, Estate Surveyors and Valuers to also propose the policy thrust on Land Use Act.
The Land Use Act CAP L.5 has been with us for more than 35 years now, having been first enacted on the 29th March, 1978 and subsequently incorporated into the Nigerian Constitution.
Objectives of the Act
The laudable objectives of the Act include: To remove bitter controversies that usually arise over title to land; To assist the citizenry, irrespective of status, realize their ambition and aspiration of owning land; To assist government in the exercise of its power of eminent domain or power to compulsorily acquire land as all land belong to state, To curtail the activities of speculators who hoard land and re-sell at very expensive rates.
Removal of the Act from the Constitution
One of the most important demands is the removal of the Act from the Constitution. The huge discussions that have attended the effect of entrenching the Act in the constitution have been a distraction.
The Act should be removed from the Constitution, because: A lot of time, energy and resources have been spent considering the import of the Act as part of the Constitution; If the Act remains in the Constitution, amending it is very laborious; Cost implication of any amendment is huge; The Land Use Act is a working document on land administration which needs review from time to time based on exigencies; The Act as a part of the Constitution creates a special problem of interpretation of the provisions of the Act viz-a-viz the provisions of the Constitution; All commissions, committees and bodies set up by previous governments have recommended that it be so removed.
Removal of the consent provisions
The case for the removal of the consent provisions of the Act are as follows: The process of obtaining consent is cumbersome; In term of cost, consent fees, in some respects are excessive and arbitrary, costing as much as 15% of the assessed value as in Lagos and requiring up to three months or more to effect; All this add to cost of doing business on land.
To ensure the operation of a free market economy, the provisions of the Land Use Act which require the consent of the governor or other local authority for dealing in land should be repealed.
Title issues
Opportunity should be taken to make adequate provision to ensure certainty and security of title. There is need to streamline title and all instruments that should be used in land transaction so that each holder would know exactly what he/she holds. This uncertainty is slowing down the economy. There should be comprehensive registration of titles and instruments affecting rights on land. There is need to register all documents, deeds and instruments relating to land.
This will ensure that land does not remain a dead capital but releases its full economic potentials.
Compensation issues
Section 29 of LUA has caused the most discontent amongst the population since the promulgation in 1978. The defect is that: It recognizes the occupier as against the holder of the Right of Occupancy in payment; It limits the compensation payable for land to the ground rent paid during the year of revocation; It does not recognize the interest of the parties other than the holder who may have paid market value prior to a government acquisition.
If land owners are adequately compensated, they might be able to resettle themselves and keep life going; but inadequate payment leads to untold hardship to the former owners.
Land taken: Compensation should be on the basis of market value. People who argue against compensation for land advance the view that land is free gift of nature forgetting that since first settlement till date, owners of such lands must have paid dearly with blood, sweat or money, which cannot be evaluated.
Recommending open market value is just a fair way of pleading with the owners to forgo their rights.
Disturbance: Each time land is acquired, the former owner suffers losses on account of acquisition. For instance, in the Niger Delta, when an acquisition occurs, owners may have been denied the opportunity of continuing in his traditional farming or fishing. Having lost such opportunity, he would also have lost the chances of bringing up his children in any of these trades. Or he would not be in a position to send his children to school or any other vocational training.
Injurious affection: Property might have been injuriously affected, the value would have depreciated due to the acquisition of a portion of the same holding. The owner ought to have been duly taken care of by way of compensation. Other policy directions regarding housing will be unveiled soonest.
Alao is Chairman of the Nigerian Institution of Estate Surveyors and Valuers (NIESV) Abuja branch.
