Furore as FG’s land use allocation committee sparks constitutional debate

Controversy has erupted over the establishment of a Land Use Allocation Committee for Land Projects by the Surveyor General of the Federation that runs contrary to the provisions of the Constitution and the Land Use Act. Legal experts and civil society groups are urging the Federal Government to urgently clarify the committee’s legal basis, scope and terms of reference or dissolve it altogether to avert a potential constitutional crisis, CHINEDUM UWAEGBULAM reports.

The Federal Government has come under intense criticism following the establishment of a Land Use Allocation Committee by the Surveyor General of the Federation (SGOF), Abdulganiyu Adebomehin, a move experts, town planners and built-environment stakeholders describe as a potential breach of the 1999 Constitution and the Land Use Act (LUA).

The committee, formally inaugurated as the Land Use and Allocation Committee for Land Projects, is intended to reform land administration, promote transparency and curb unapproved development. However, its creation has reopened long-standing debates about federal overreach, constitutional boundaries and the delicate balance between federal authority and state autonomy in Nigeria’s land governance system.

The five-member committee is chaired by Adebomehin, with M. O. Akinwande as secretary. Other members include C. D. Nwogu and John Idoko. According to the SGOF, the committee’s mandate includes identifying suitable land for critical infrastructure and housing projects, leveraging geospatial data and digital mapping to guide orderly development, and ensuring compliance with land-use regulations to curb illegal structures.

Speaking at the inauguration, Adebomehin pointed to the absence of transparent and digitised land records as a major challenge confronting Nigeria’s land administration system. He argued that poor data management has fuelled land grabbing, proliferation of unapproved developments, delays in planning approvals and uncertainty that discourages investment.

He said the committee would rely on modern surveying tools, geospatial intelligence and digital land information systems to protect environmentally sensitive areas such as wetlands, shorelines and flood plains, while also supporting national infrastructure and housing delivery objectives.

Constitutional red flags
Despite these assurances, critics insist that the committee’s very existence is constitutionally suspicious. Under the Land Use Act, which is entrenched in the 1999 Constitution, all land in each state is vested in the governor of that state to be held in trust for the people. Governors exercise authority over land allocation in urban areas, while local governments control land in rural areas.

Legal experts argue that this framework leaves no room for a federal committee to exercise authority, directly or indirectly, over land use allocation within states. They warn that the Federal Government’s action amounts to an unlawful encroachment on powers reserved exclusively for state governors and local governments.

Some civil society organisations have warned that they may seek judicial interpretation if the action is not reversed, arguing that unchecked administrative actions could set dangerous precedents for governance and federalism.

For many observers, the development is another flashpoint in Nigeria’s often-contentious federal structure, where disputes over residual matters such as land, planning and local governance frequently generate political and legal tension.

Stakeholders in the real estate, construction and development sectors have also expressed concern about the practical implications of the committee. They fear that introducing another layer of authority into land administration could worsen bureaucratic delays, create confusion over land titles and expose investors to legal risks, especially where federal directives appear to conflict with state approvals.

Developers warn that uncertainty over which authority has the final say on land allocation or land use decisions could deter both local and foreign investors, who require clear, predictable and legally secure processes before committing capital to housing and infrastructure projects.

Some practitioners note that Nigeria already struggles with overlapping mandates among agencies, and adding a federally constituted land-use body could deepen regulatory paralysis rather than resolve inefficiencies.

To some critics, the committee reflects a broader trend towards centralisation by the Federal Government, often justified by the need for policy coordination, reform or national development planning. However, they argue that coordination cannot substitute for constitutional compliance.

While supporters of the committee maintain that the Federal Government has a legitimate interest in land matters linked to federal infrastructure, housing schemes and national development projects, opponents counter that even an “advisory” body can exert undue influence over decisions constitutionally reserved for states.

Town planners fault legal basis
A former president of the Nigerian Institute of Town Planners (NITP), Mr Nathaniel Atebije, told The Guardian that there is no provision under the Land Use Act for the Federal Government to allocate land, as land matters are treated as residual issues under the Constitution.

“Abuja is exempted because allocation powers there rest with the President, delegated to Federal Capital Territory authorities, since the FCT is a federal territory,” he said. “Any federal involvement outside federally owned land or the FCT constitutes institutional overreach inconsistent with planning law and constitutional structure.”

According to Atebije, a federally constituted land-use allocation committee cannot legally coexist with state land administration structures as a parallel authority. “At best, the Federal Government may establish advisory or coordinating mechanisms without allocation, zoning or approval powers,” he explained.

Atebije warned that policy coordination becomes unconstitutional interference when it constrains state discretion, affects land allocation or land use, assumes implementation authority, or bypasses statutory planning institutions.

“Coordination ends and interference begins the moment a federal policy ceases to guide and begins to govern land decisions within a state,” he said. “Under the Constitution, coordination is legitimate only when it sets non-binding policy frameworks, facilitates intergovernmental cooperation, harmonises data and standards, supports capacity-building and respects state discretion in implementation.”

He cautioned that allowing a federal committee to influence or precede planning approvals would undermine statutory planning authorities, weaken zoning enforcement and politicise development control.

“By pre-empting planning schemes and exerting political pressure on statutory authorities, the committee risks converting planning approvals from a regulatory process into an administrative process”, he added.

Lessons from Abuja
Drawing from experience in the Federal Capital Territory, Atebije said overlapping directives already create daily challenges in Abuja’s development control system.

“Overlapping federal and state directives fracture development control, politicise planning permits, weaken enforcement and render approvals legally unstable,” he noted. “Effective planning demands a single, clearly defined authority. Anything else invites disorder.”

He warned that confusion of authority could cripple development control systems nationwide if replicated across states.

Debate over Land Use allocation terminology
Another past president of NITP, Mr Toyin Ayinde, said the controversy partly reflects a misunderstanding of terminology. According to him, the Land Use Act gave rise to the concept of a Land Use and Allocation Committee, but its meaning is often misconstrued.

“If it is about granting ownership of land to individuals or corporate organisations, the correct nomenclature should be ‘Land Allocation Committee,’” Ayinde said. “However, if it is about ‘land use,’ then we are talking about the designation of land uses, which is a core function of town planning and urban and regional planning, beyond the purview of a surveyor.”

Ayinde, a former Lagos State Commissioner for Physical Planning and Urban Development, reiterated that the LUA vests all land in a state in the governor of that state.

“The only territory under the direct control of the Federal Government is the FCT, as well as areas acquired by states and leased to the Federal Government for overriding public interest,” he said.

“Any land allocation committee constituted by the Federal Government is thus limited to those areas.”

Supreme Court precedent and planning authority
Ayinde stressed that for harmony and sustainable development, federal entities operating within states must subscribe to state physical development plans, which range from regional plans to neighbourhood plans.

“To do otherwise is to act illegally and contrary to the Supreme Court judgment of June 2003,” he said. “If we stick to the rule of law, there should be no complications. The Federal Government has no development control responsibilities; those powers rest with the states.”

He warned that professional boundaries are being blurred. “You can’t control what you don’t own. There is a worrying tendency to overstep boundaries, which is not in the interest of sustainable development and makes us a laughing stock in the comity of developing nations,” Ayinde added.

Civil society warns of ‘toxic titles’
The Chief Responsibility Officer of the Cromwell Centre for Research in Housing and Urban Development, Mr Olusola Enitan, urged the Federal Government to disband what he described as an illegal committee to protect the integrity of Nigeria’s land market.

He called on the Attorney-General of the Federation and the Secretary to the Government of the Federation to restrain what he termed administrative overreach. “The Office of the Surveyor General of the Federation should focus on enforcing the Survey Coordination Act regarding data integration and security, rather than venturing into the illegalities of land allocation,” Enitan said.

A lawyer and estate surveyor, Enitan warned that any allocation made by an unauthorised committee would be legally void ab initio, creating what he described as “toxic titles” that cannot be used as collateral or recognised by financial institutions.

Enitan argued that the President’s Renewed Hope Agenda views land as a strategic economic asset meant to drive wealth creation. “By arrogating powers of allocation to a technical office, the SGOF is undermining that vision,” he said.

According to him, jurisdictional chaos introduced by overlapping mandates discourages both local and foreign investors who require legal certainty before committing funds to housing and infrastructure projects.

“Civil servants must work within the ambit of their statutory powers,” Enitan added. “The Surveyor General’s role is to provide the geospatial foundation for development, not to preside over the distribution of land.

Arrogating the functions of estate surveyors and town planners to a geospatial office makes a shambles of professionalism.”(Guardian)