The honorable Minister should be advised to recall or withdraw or revoke only C of Os that have been found to be fake or fraudulently obtained. This is the only reasonable thing to do. If on the other hand, the intention is to raise funds, the FCT should enforce the rules as contained in the C of Os as regards payment of ground rents and all other charges. Whoever has defaulted in the payment should be asked to pay within some specified period failure which appropriate action in line with the document should be taken.
I am also aware that the FCT had a budget approved for it by the National Assembly. If this is found not to be adequate, he can make a request for additional funds through the presidency by submitting a supplementary budget and this will be passed to the National Assembly which will approve if it can be defended by the FCT Minister.
If it is a vendetta against previous government functionaries who have abused their positions, this can be done by fishing out such fraudulent dealings and revoke their C of Os. A Yoruba proverb says "Ika to ba se ni Oba Nge" which means the King only sanctions the offender. El-Rufai should not visit the sins of a few on all landowners in the FCT. It is against natural Justice. The Minister should consider the wide implication of his action namely reducing the potency of the certificate of Occupancy as a genuine instrument of evidence of ownership of land in Nigeria.
Before the land use Decree, the evidence of title to land in Nigeria (in the south) was the deed of conveyance. The problem with the conveyance was the fact that it was possible then to have two or more deeds of conveyance on the same piece of land, which was causing a lot of problem to the financial houses and this resulted in many legal tussles. This was one of the reasons for the land use decree, i.e. to restore confidence in the document that will serve as a proof of ownership of land anywhere in Nigeria! Now that confidence is being eroded.
Imagine some banks/financial institutions that have granted loans and have accepted C of Os as collateral security for such loans What becomes of them They, now wake up to find out that the document they are holding is now as useless as toilet paper. The implication of this for the economy can be very grave. How can a Bank release a C of O pledged as a security for a facility to the borrower to go and procure a new one from the FCT Supposing the borrower collects the new one and refuses to submit it back to the bank If on the other hand, the bank refuses to release it to enable the borrower procure a new one, the one it is holding is already useless. Which means all loans granted and secured on C of Os of land in the FCT cease to have any collateral from the date of the minister's announcement. I do not think he has thought of this implication.
The damage that will be done to the property market cannot be measured. First, no sensible person will buy or transact any business that involves land in the FCT until the exercise is over. Which means those who have properties to sell to establish new business or to improve existing ones will not be able to sell. Those who wish to use such properties to raise loan for their business will not be able to do so.
The greater danger is even in the fear that this will be a precedent that any State governor may follow in the future. If El-Rufai gets away with this now, what stops Governor Bola Tinubu from doing a similar thing in Lagos State If this happens the certificate of occupancy would have lost its worth as an authentic proof of ownership anywhere in Nigeria. So all those who hold a C of O anywhere in the country should be asking themselves what is the worth of their C of O
This again brings to the fore the point, which I raised in my article, titled "The Land Use decree, 20 years after" (The Vanguard, April 13, 1998). In that article, I had asked the question whether a C of O is title to land or a mere evidence of Occupation of Land as the name implies! Unlike the conveyance, which was an indisputable title to land, it has been decided in some cases that a C or O cannot confer title on its holder where none existed before - Ogunleye Vs Oni (1990) NWLR and Registered Trustees of Apostolic Church Vs Olowoleni (1990) NWLR. What is the real intention of the Law This is one of the areas of the Land use Act that requires fine-tuning.
The National Assembly should not fold its arms while a law that is part of the constitution is being violated. There is no section of the land use Act that gave power to anybody to withdraw a certificate of occupancy. Section 28 part V gave power to the Governor to revoke a C of O for "OVERRIDING PUBLIC INTEREST". Since the minister has said that he has not revoked the C of Os but merely withdrawn them, then his action is not in line with the constitution as there is no section that gives him such power. In case the National Assembly fails to do something, those whose rights are being violated should not hesitate to challenge the action in court.
Akomolede is a property consultant in Lagos.
__
