By Comrade Embassy- Oseni Momodu Esq.
The housing and rental crisis in Nigeria has become one of the defining social and economic challenges. Created not of the present administration of President Tinubu alone but successive ones too. Spiralling rents, multiple years’ advance payments, excessive agency charges, rich-poor dichotomy, arbitrary service fees and a widening housing deficit have placed decent accommodation beyond the reach of millions of low income earning Nigerians. Against this backdrop, my learned friend and fellow rights activist Deji Adeyanju’s Open Letter to President Bola Ahmed Tinubu calling for a State of Emergency on Rent control, Housing Deficit, etc. has opened yet a lingering debate with lawyers, engineers, property developers, surveyors, investors, landlord and tenants alike, policy makers, legislators, real estate practitioners and property litigation students in Nigerian Law School.
His Open Letter to President Tinubu is, without question, a bold policy advocacy. It eloquently captures the frustration of tenants and highlights the urgent need for federal government’s intervention. However, while its moral force is undeniable, its legal and policy foundations lack practical implementation.
According to Adedoku, Issa Akanji in his “Award Winning Post Graduate Thesis” submitted to the “School of Post Graduate Studies, Univeristy of Lagos” and titled: “Moderate Rent Control Approach As A Mechanism of Maintaining Balance of Interest Between Landlord And Tenants in Lagos State, Nigeria (2023)”; The author, while acknowledging the legal right and justification for government’s intervention in Rent Control particularly in Lagos State, he however concluded that “government should implement policies that will reduce construction costs, taxes related to the cost of production of houses and consider regulating the cost of building materials and amongst other downward reviews.
“This can be achieved by giving tax holidays on the production of building materials and constant electricity supply to reduce overhead cost likely to be incured in manufacturing building materials.” The above excerpts is found on page 202 of the said “Award winning Thesis”. The scholarly work further recommended areas of improvement, efficiency in the Rent Control and housing deficit debate including “constitutional amendment to the Land Use Act (1978), reintroduction of property rent tribunal (mediation or special court) for swift dispute resolution between tenant and landlord, ease of obtaining Governor’s Consent to land. Others are enforcement of Rent Control Law, the court to be empowered to collect rent directly from tenant in exceptional circumstances when excess rents are charged, …” etc.
The Open Letter to the President’s reliance on Sections 14 and 16 of the 1999 Constitution noteworthy. Section 14(2)(b) provides that “the security and welfare of the people shall be the primary purpose of government,” while Section 16 directs the State to pursue policies that promote adequate shelter and prevent excessive concentration of wealth. These provisions undoubtedly provide a constitutional basis for advocating affordable housing policies and social welfare reforms. In reality, the Federal Government of Nigeria has continued to embark on mass housing infrastructure across distict administrations. Else, there is Abacha housing scheme, Obasanjo scheme, Jonathan Housing scheme, Muhammadu Buhari Housing scheme, and ongoing Tinubu Housing scheme coordinated by Federal Housing Authority. Whether these housing infrastructure are adequate for millions of Nigerian housing need is a fact that stares us in the face.
Similarly, the letter overstates their legal effect. The above provisions are contained in Chapter II of the Constitution, which sets out the Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy. Under Section 6(6)(c), these provisions are generally non-justiciable, meaning they cannot ordinarily be enforced by the courts unless through legislative reconstruction. While they undoubtedly guide government policy, they do not impose directly enforceable constitutional obligations in the same manner as the fundamental rights provisions guaranteed under Chapter IV. Consequently, the assertion that the Nigerian State is constitutionally bound to provide housing is unfounded and consequently imposes no legal duty that could be enforceable under the Nigerian law.
However, the letter correctly invokes Article 11 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), which recognises the right to adequate housing. Nigeria has ratified the treaty, and its principles are relevant in shaping national policy. Nevertheless, Section 12 of the Constitution requires international treaties to be domesticated by the National Assembly before they become enforceable in Nigerian courts. The distinction between Nigeria’s international commitments and enforceable domestic rights is an important constitutional element that the letter does not sufficiently acknowledge.
Again, the proposal for the President to Declare a State of Emergency on Housing in Nigeria presents impracticable constitutional bottlenecks. Section 305 of the Constitution 1999 (as amended) limits the declaration of a state of emergency to exceptional circumstances such as War, External Aggression, Breakdown of Public 0rder, Natural Disasters or other grave threats to the federation.
Nevetheless, while Nigeria’s housing crisis is undoubtedly severe, it does not comfortably fit within these constitutional categories. A more legally sustainable recommendation would have been for the President to declare housing a national policy priority and to initiate coordinated executive and legislative reforms across the federation rather than invoking the constitutional emergency powers.
Another very significant omission in the Letter is the Federal Character model of Nigeria’s legal system. Housing and tenancy regulation are not exclusively federal responsibilities. Although the Federal Government plays a major role in housing policy, land administration is governed largely by the Land Use Act, while tenancy matters are substantially regulated through state enactments. States such as Lagos, Edo, Ekiti and others have enacted their own tenancy laws, reflecting the constitutional distribution of legislative powers. As a result, proposals to impose nationwide rent ceilings-maximum ceiling, agency fee caps or tenancy rules cannot be achieved solely through executive directives or fiat from the Presidency. Many of these reforms would require legislation by the National Assembly or, more importantly, action by individual State Houses of Assembly. Ultimately, such proposal is experimentally impracticable.
More importantly, from an economic perspective, the Letter accurately identifies the realities confronting Nigerian tenants. Inflation, speculative rent increases, multiple years’ advance rent, excessive agency fees, unregulated service charges and the country’s enormous housing deficit are genuine challenges requiring urgent intervention. However, several proposed solutions do not adequately account for prevailing market conditions. More important is the huge and rising cost of building materials, housing maintenance, cost of acquiring lands, multiple taxations deliberately imposed by the federal government and allied federating units.
For instance, restricting landlords to one year of advance rent appears attractive from a consumer protection standpoint Nontheless, it does not address the underlying reasons landlords insist on demanding two or three years’ rent in advance. Persistent inflation, rapid depreciation of the naira, weak enforcement of tenancy agreements and lengthy court processes for recovering of premises all exponentially increase landlords’ financial risks. Without broader macroeconomic stability and more efficient dispute resolution mechanisms, limiting advance rent alone could simply encourage landlords to increase annual rents or withdraw properties from the rental market altogether which could pose housing crisis in Nigeria.
The proposed ceiling of 7.5 per cent for combined agency and legal fees also raises questions. While excessive charges certainly deserve regulation, the letter to the President provides no empirical basis for selecting that figure instead of alternative thresholds. The Letter did not take into account professional charges scale regulated by Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) with respect to rental and outright property acquisition. Sound public policy generally requires market studies, stakeholder consultation and regulatory impact assessments before fixed percentages are adopted. This is the usual standard.
Even more problematic is the recommendation that service charges be capped at five per cent (5%) of annual rent. Service charges are typically determined by operational costs rather than rental values. Diesel, electricity, private security, water treatment, waste management, lift maintenance and estate administration fluctuate independently of rent and have become considerably more expensive in recent years. In many residential estates, diesel expenditure alone may exceed the proposed limit. Rather than imposing arbitrary caps, stronger regulation would likely be achieved through mandatory itemisation, audited accounts, transparency and mechanisms for resolving disputes over unreasonable charges.
Also deserving of mentioning is the criticism of Caution Fees. Often time, many tenants complain that refundable deposits are withheld without justification at the end of their tenancy. Nevertheless, the outright prohibition of caution fees may not be the most balanced solution. Most legal systems recognise refundable security deposits as legitimate, provided there are clear rules governing their use, proper accounting and prompt refund where no damage has occurred. The question is now this, is it ever possible that house, electricals, sanitaries, wall, etc. remains the same after annual rental dispensation?.
Lawyer Deji’s Letter to President Tinubu also proposes criminal sanctions for non-compliant landlords and estate agents. While sanctions have a role in regulation, criminalisation should generally be reserved for fraudulent or deliberately exploitative conduct. Administrative penalties, compensation orders, licensing requirements and specialised tenancy tribunals may prove more effective in securing compliance without unnecessarily expanding the criminal justice system.
The comparative examples cited in the Letter deserve a more focused treatment. Ghana’s rent legislation limits advance rent and establishes a Rent Control Department to oversee compliance. Yet practical enforcement has often been inconsistent, with reports of landlords continuing to demand payments beyond the statutory limits. Ghana’s experience demonstrates that legislation alone cannot solve housing affordability without effective enforcement institutions with a balanced realizable scrutiny.
South Africa arguably provides a stronger comparative model. Its Constitution expressly guarantees the right of access to adequate housing and obliges the State to adopt reasonable legislative and other measures, within available resources, to progressively realise that right. South Africa has also established Rental Housing Tribunals (RHT) that provide accessible mechanisms for resolving disputes between landlords and tenants without resorting to prolonged court proceedings. These institutional safeguards offer lessons that extend beyond rent regulation and illustrate how effective dispute resolution can strengthen housing governance.
Perhaps the strongest section of the letter is its treatment of urban renewal. The warning that urban renewal should not become synonymous with gentrification- unaffordable rental, is both timely and persuasive. Cities cannot function if artisans, civil servants, teachers, health workers and other essential workers are pushed beyond the reach of affordable accommodation. Inclusive zoning, mixed-income developments and social housing have become recognised planning tools in many jurisdictions, including South Africa and several European countries. However, implementing such policies requires coordinated planning legislation, infrastructure investment, sustainable financing and cooperation among all levels of government.
Nigeria’s housing crisis is associated with the Land Use Act, limited access to mortgage finance, expensive building approvals, inadequate infrastructure, escalating costs of cement and iron steel, foreign exchange pressures, property taxation and prolonged judicial processes all contribute significantly to rising rents. Addressing these systemic constraints may ultimately produce more lasting improvements than regulating agency commissions or limiting advance rent.
Yet effective housing reform requires more than compelling rhetoric. It demands constitutional precision, respect for Nigeria’s federal structure, evidence-based economic policymaking and careful adaptation of successful international models. A coordinated national housing strategy, developed in partnership with state governments and supported by legislative reform, institutional strengthening and macroeconomic stability, is likely to deliver more sustainable results than sweeping regulatory directives alone.
The housing crisis deserves urgent action. But lasting solutions must be grounded not only in compassion and political will, but also in constitutional fidelity, sound economics and practical governance.
~By Comrade Embassy- Oseni Momodu Esq. (Associate Counsel at Mike Ozekhome’s Chambers)
LFP, B.A (Hons.), LL.B (Hons.), B.L, LL.M (in-view), MICIArb, MILA, Accr’d. Med.