By Remi Johnson
Senator Ireti Kingibe has come under criticism for her recent comments regarding the enforcement of revocation orders on land titles over unpaid ground rent, with calls for her to better acquaint herself with the Land Use Act.
Kingibe, who represents the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) in the Senate, stated on Wednesday that property cannot lawfully be revoked or sealed solely due to non-payment of ground rent. According to her, the legal penalty for such default is restricted to a fine or surcharge.
In her words, “While the government retains the constitutional power to revoke land for overriding public interest, such revocation must strictly follow due legal process as stipulated under the Land Use Act and the Urban and Regional Planning Act, including the payment of due compensation.
“Therefore, no Nigerian’s property can be lawfully seized, revoked, or sealed solely on account of failure to pay ground rent. The penalty for such default is, by law, limited to a fine or surcharge, not the compulsory taking over or sealing of the property without recourse to the due process prescribed under Section 42 of the Land Use Act and other relevant provisions.”
Responding on Thursday, Lere Olayinka, the Special Assistant on Public Communications and Social Media to the FCT Minister, accused Senator Kingibe of ignorance concerning the Land Use Act and of politicizing the matter unnecessarily.
He clarified that land allocation comes with specific conditions, including the annual payment of ground rent, which must be adhered to. Olayinka also urged the Senator to let go of any perceived animosity toward the FCT Minister, asserting that her stance appeared to be clouded by personal dislike.
Labeling her statement as “ridiculously illogical,” Olayinka emphasized, “It is ridiculously embarrassing that a serving Senator of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, whose duty is to make laws is ignorant of the provisions of Section 28, Subsections (a) and (b) of the Land Use Act.
“For the education of Senator Kingibe, Section 28, Subsections (a) and (b) of the Land Use Act provides that ‘The Government may revoke a Statutory Right of Occupancy on the ground of; (a) a breach of any of the provisions which a certificate of occupancy is by Section 10 deemed to contain; and (b) a breach of any term contained in the Certificate of Occupancy.’
“Now, is annual payment of Ground Rent not part of the terms contained in the Certificate of Occupancy? Or Senator Kingibe just chose to advertise her myopic attitude to anything Wike?”
He further commented that if one were to adopt her perspective, it would suggest that FCT landowners could simply opt out of their financial obligations without consequences.
Olayinka concluded by posing a rhetorical question: “Now, if land allottees refused to pay Ground Rent for 10 to 43 years, will Senator Ireti Kingibe just look away if she was the FCT Minister?”