In 1978, the Land Use Act was enacted in a bid to modernize land ownership in Nigeria and to spur development. However, decades later, land administration in the country continues to serve as a brake on the country’s economic engine. This is because the system remains needlessly complicated, expensive, and as a result, dysfunctional.
The unfortunate consequence of the current state of affairs is that as much as 90% of property assets in Nigeria aren’t formally titled. This means that they are locked out of the banking system, and thus cannot be used as collateral to obtain loans for business expansion or investment. This is because Nigeria operates a land ownership and titling framework that makes it extremely difficult for individuals and businesses to secure legal titles. This state of affairs seriously slows down development as land is the foundation of virtually every productive activity (housing, agriculture, manufacturing, mining, logistics and infrastructure).
The history of nations suggests that there is no way around the land reform issue. For nations that have achieved admirable degrees of prosperity and development, it seems to have been a crucial step that all had to pass through. We shall look at a few countries.
In the US, major land reform started with the Homestead Act of 1862. The Act granted land to settlers who were willing to farm the land, as much of the country particularly in the western direction was “unsettled” (Okay the land was sparsely populated by native American Indians, but that is another story. If you, like I did, grew up watching cowboy and Indian movies, you would probably have an inkling that the settlement wasn’t a smooth process. There is a reason it was called “the wild wild west”). Crucially, implementation of the Act required formal registration and titling. The secure land titles allowed farmers to use land as collateral, fueling credit markets and agricultural investment. This enabled westward expansion, created a property‑owning middle class, and underpinned U.S. capitalism.
In France, the French Revolution of 1789 abolished the feudal system where land was held by a tiny elite group comprising of royalty and nobles. The land was then redistributed more widely among the populace. Provision was made for formal titling and registration with the institution of the Napoleonic code in 1804. This established a system of uniform property rights. The secure ownership encouraged investment in agriculture and commerce, while dismantling aristocratic dominance. All this was central to France’s transition to a modern capitalist economy.
In Japan, Post World War II reforms redistributed much of landlords’ estates to farmer-tenants. The farmers received formal deeds and registration, ensuring legal ownership. The secure titles reduced rural inequality and gave farmers collateral for loans. This freed labor and capital for industrialization, fueling Japan’s rapid postwar growth.
In Mexico, during the violent Mexican revolution (1910-1921), land was redistributed from wealthy landowners (prior to the revolution, less than 1% of the populace owned about 85% of the land) to commoners via communal land offerings known as ejidos. The ejidos often lacked individual land titles, thus limiting their use as collateral, investment, and also constraining productivity, but they did provide social justice and stability. Later reforms allowed titling of ejido plots to improve credit access.
In China, the communist revolution of 1949, redistributed landlord-held land to peasants. The redistributed lands initially had informal titles, these later evolved to communal titles. Secure individual titles were absent (As a result of China being communist). The Deng Xiaoping market reforms of the 1980s instituted a system of contractual rights, though not full titles. This limited tenure security boosted agricultural productivity and investment. The agricultural gains freed labor for industry, laying the foundation for China’s economic rise.
Previous administrations have made attempts at land reform in Nigeria. During the administration of Umaru Musa Yar’Adua, the government initiated a land reform programme aimed at modernizing land records and simplifying ownership processes. The initiative, however, stalled before meaningful implementation. Similarly, Goodluck Jonathan attempted to audit government land assets and improve transparency in land administration. But like earlier reforms, the effort failed to address the deeper structural issues embedded in the Land Use Act.
Previous failed attempts at reform is no excuse not to keep on trying. Some actions to expedite progress readily suggest themselves like the acceleration of digital land registries and cadastral mapping. Digital land registries would drastically reduce disputes, fraud and bureaucratic delays. The cost of land registration must be significantly reduced, and the nation should develop a nationwide property database linked to financial institutions. Once land titles are verifiable and transferable, banks can confidently expand mortgage lending and property-backed financing.
Above all, land governance must become transparent and accountable, as corruption, multiple allocations and land grabbing remain persistent problems in several parts of the nation.
