Land Acquisition And Land Revocation In Nigeria: Land Use Act Or Land Misuse Act?

By Isaac Opatewa And Samson Obaro

There is no gainsaying the fact that human society all over the world is heavily dependent on land and its resources, and without land, human existence will be less possible.

In the words of Omotola J.A(Prof), he stated with admirable lucidity that:

“every person requires land for support, preservation and self actualization . within the general ideals of the society. Land is the foundation of shelter, fund and employment. Man live on land during his life time and even upon his demise, his remains are kept in it permanently’’

Before the era of the British unceremonious punch-in into Nigeria, the Nation had existing systems through which ownership of land was tied to particular individuals. This was the customary land law system which is peculiar to a people of a particular region.
A major focus rests on the extant law governing land use in Nigeria. Land has been defined by section 18 of the Interpretation Act cap 192, LFN, 1990 as:

“Land includes any building and any other thing attached to the earth Or permanently fastened to anything so attached, but does not
Include MINERALS.”

Also sections 1,and 2(1) of the Land use Act vest ownership and control of land on the Governor of the states of the federation.
The desire of citizens to acquire land cannot be over emphasized this is because land is seen as an indispensible factor of production, besides it been a free gift of nature which some believe is a product of the activities of a great power somewhere, and this believe has made persons who claim to be worshippers of such power to claim ownership of lands in some specified locations. This claim of ownership of this free gift of nature has occasioned a battle of who controls the land and two schools of thought opine that the government should control and own lands, while the other believe land should be owned and controlled by those who gave their will to form the government.
The subject of land, as well as land ownership, has been construed based on two Latin maxims namely:

Quicquid Plantitur solo solo credit -which means; ‘whatever is affixed to the ground, belongs to the ground. ‘and Cuis eat solum eius eat usque ad column et ad iferos- which means; ‘ He who owns the land owns everything extending to the heaven and to the depth of the earth.’

The import and purport of the concept of Land Use Act or land misuse Act is premised on the right enshrined in section 43. Of the 1999 constitution of the federal republic of Nigeria which provides thus:

” subject to the provisions of this constitution, every citizen of Nigeria Shall have the right to acquire and own immovable property anywhere In Nigeria. “

The concept of ownership as stated in the second Latin maxim stated above lean on the fact that ownership bestows on the owner the full legal right over anything on the land and this is backed with the first legal maxim. Where a right is milked and the owner of the right is left with little or no right to enjoy is a MISUSE of power. Before the oil boom, little attention was given to ownership of land and its use. The discovery of rich natural resources has aided the clear misuse of our lands and its ownership structure.

The enjoyment of land is met to be total and absolute with considerable restrictions in the realm of civil law and the principle of strict liability as stated in the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher. However, it is pertinent to state categorically that a double sided law approbating and reprobating at the same time is one that cannot stand the test of time in that section 44(3) gives support to the dictatorial and forceful ownership of land stated under section 13 of the Minerals Act which empowers the Nigeria Mining Corporation to acquire land under compulsion which is at variance with section 44(1) of the 1999 constitution of the federal republic of Nigeria.

In Nigeria, the provisions of section 43 of the constitution provides that no right or interest in movable or immovable property shall be compulsorily acquired anywhere in Nigeria without the payment of adequate compensation.

Thus, while the constitution clearly draws the importance of land to personal economic growth by preserving the right of individual in terms of acquiring property; it also place recognition on the states of the need to pay adequate compensation to the person whose property is been acquired. There is therefore the need to strike a balance between the state rights to acquire private land and private property rights as well as what is deemed ‘reasonable compensation’.

This balance can only be realized when the acquisition of these resources are put to the optimal use.

The Land Use Act continues to attract plethora of criticism, particularly as it relates to centralization of Land use and managerial power. Firstly, this allows state monopoly of land for housing and other developmental purposes by individual and institutional investors. Secondly, it has encouraged and institutionalized corruption in the public sector; promotes land racketing and secrecy in public land management in Nigeria.

Thirdly, the cumbersome and costly procedures for obtaining certificate of occupancy(C of O) and governors consent to mortgage, assign, lease, sub-lease and alienate an interest in land operate as a major stumbling block to housing and agricultural business. The poor do not have money to buy land and have no access to subsidized credit facility or public infrastructure. The price of developed land is usually exorbitant due to land racketing and speculation in many urban centers. The revocation of a right of occupancy or compulsory acquisition of land accompanied a poor compensatory regime, with arbitrary valuation of improvements. Land revoked for overriding public purposes is sold at a prime market value by the government to land speculators and developers, putting land and housing far out of reach for the poor

Under Native jurisprudence, Land were usually redistributed among members of the community through the institution of customary or Kola tenancy regardless of their status. However, Urbanization has taken away this sweet communal system of land ownership and replaced it with the unsuited statutory land rights, thereby making many communities as well as families near the city richer through the sale of land. What this brings to strangers who cannot afford cost of land is to cause them to settle in unsuited locations.

The Land redistribution which the Act seem to achieve through the legal process of revocation is arbitrarily use as a cloak to unjustly deprive private land owners, particularly the customary land owners of their land, as some revocation by land administrators were for personal interest.

A worrying dimension in public land regulation is the lack of accountability and transparency in the revocation process. The Act has been criticized for promoting insecurity of Land title. Although a C of O confers, at least, a leasehold interest, in reality it does not protect the holder against arbitrary and punitive actions of government officials, even forcible eviction.

Furthermore, the recurring problems of compensation for expropriated lands are yet to be statutory, administrative or judicially settled. When paid at all, compensation has always been untimely, and no serious effort is made to address community’s profound cultural, social-political values and spiritual attachments to land holding.

Beyond the superficiality of this great modern oriented perception, it is suggested that the National Assembly should initiate the process of removing the Land Use Act from the 1999 constitution in order to ease its amendment for the twin objective of equitable land redistribution and efficient land administration.

The amendment could also allow the Federal and state Government to exercise concurrent powers on land, and such amendments must take cognizance of the Land rights of citizens to accessibility, security of titles, compensations and conversion of their right to economic power.

Opatewa Isaac, a legal practitioner, writes from Lagos. Opazik1@gmail.com

Obaro Samson is a 400L Law Student of Ambrose Alli University, Ekpoma. obarosamson@gmail.com;08154766597.