Reclaimed for the People: Oyo State Asserts Authority Over ‘Abandoned’ Lands – FG Rights Challenged
In a recent development emanating from Ibadan, the Oyo State Government has mounted a robust challenge to the Federal Government of Nigeria’s claims over certain high-value land assets within the state. At a press briefing in late October 2025, the state’s Lands, Housing & Urban Development Commissioner, Akinfunmilayo Williams, declared that several parcels of land previously claimed by federal agencies had in fact been lawfully revoked, reallocated, and thus ceased to be federal property.
The assertion raises critical questions about land ownership, government accountability, utilisation of public land, and the interplay between state and federal jurisdiction — topics highly relevant for investors, property professionals, and citizens alike.
Background: What triggered the confrontation?
The conflict stemmed from a public notice issued by the Federal Ministry of Housing and Urban Development on 22 October 2025, which listed several parcels of land in Oyo State and warned that “any individual or entity attempting to buy, sell or claim ownership… would be doing so illegally and at their own risk.”
Among the lands listed were:
Africa Regional Centre for Engineering Design & Manufacturing (ARCEDEM) along Iwo Road, Ibadan
The Federal Low-Cost Estate & Site and Services at Idi-Ayunre
Federal Housing Scheme in Saki
National Strategic Grain Reserve site at Iyande
Radio Nigeria property – Basorun
National Horticultural Research Institute site at Ajalubosa, Alesinloye
Reacting to the notice, the Oyo State Government asserted that these were lands that its government had lawfully reclaimed — some as far back as 2020 and earlier — because of prolonged abandonment, neglect or misuse by the federal agencies.
Why the State says it reclaimed the lands
Commissioner Williams, in his statement, laid out the state’s position as follows:
Under the Land Use Act of 1978, “authority over all land in the state is vested in the governor”. Thus, the state claims that federal agencies are essentially tenants on state land.
Many of the parcels in question had been left idle for decades, becoming derelict, posing security risks (e.g., the ARCEDEM site “became a jungle, harbouring criminals”), and blocking urban development.
Following due-process, notices of intent to revoke Certificates of Occupancy (CofO) were served, public announcements made, and reallocation followed. The state emphasises its actions were “corrective and protective” — designed to reclaim neglected spaces and promote sustainable growth rather than punitive.
The state government insisted that when federal agencies fail to develop land for the public good, the state has the duty to intervene and reallocate for the benefit of its citizens.
Federal Government’s stance & counter-claims
From the federal side, the public notice effectively asserted that these lands remain federal assets, and that transacting on them — buying, selling, claiming — would be at one’s own risk. This suggests that the federal government views the state’s reclamation as either invalid or disputed.
However, the state challenges that stance, calling the notice misleading and a misrepresentation of the legal status of the lands. The state also accuses federal agencies of acting above state planning laws, building without appropriate approvals, thereby undermining local regulation and governance.
Implications: For citizens, investors and governance
The dispute holds several implications:
For property buyers/investors: The state’s warning and the federal notice both signal risk. Those considering transactions involving the listed lands must conduct rigorous due-diligence. Until clarity is attained, there’s potential for disputed title, legal risk, or inability to enforce rights.
For urban development & land use: The state’s argument centres on the principle that idle or abandoned land should not lie fallow — unproductive and potentially hazardous. Should the state prevail, it may open pathways for more aggressive reclamation of similar parcels and accelerate development.
For federal–state relations: At a deeper level this dispute underscores the tension between federal agencies’ rights and state land authority under the Land Use Act. It raises broader questions about the balance of land governance in Nigeria and the effectiveness of institutions in enforcing land utilisation.
For citizens & governance: The conversation turns on accountability. If large parcels of land are idle for decades and pose security or environmental risks, reclamation becomes a matter of public interest. The state’s emphasis on transparency and lawfulness suggests an attempt to shift the narrative toward citizen-centric land governance.
What’s next and what to watch
Legal resolution: We may expect legal challenges or court clarification on the rightful owner(s) of the parcels in question. Precedents may emerge for other states facing similar situations.
Investor assurance: The state has assured legitimate investors that actions are not meant to frighten but to support credible development. How this assurance is operationalised will be key to investor confidence.
Policy reforms: This case might accelerate calls for land administration reforms — digitisation of land records, stronger enforcement of development deadlines on CofO, clearer federal-state delineation of land ownership rights (a topic already flagged by the minister that “over 90 % of Nigerian lands remain unregistered”).
Public awareness & protection: Citizens hoping to purchase or lease land must demand proof of revocation, valid CofO, and confirmation of state versus federal ownership. The public notice by the federal government underscores the necessity of caution.
Urban renewal opportunities: For the state government, reclaimed lands offer a chance to stimulate redevelopment, address security concerns, and generate revenue through reallocation. The handling of these lands will reflect the state’s commitment to utilising resources for the benefit of its people.
The announcement by Oyo State that “revoked lands are no longer federal property” is far more than a headline. It’s a flash-point in Nigeria’s ongoing land governance challenges — official relations between state and federal institutions, the slow pace of land utilisation, investor uncertainty, and citizen rights.
If managed carefully, this development provides a blueprint: states asserting legal authority over neglected lands, reclaiming them for public benefit, and strengthening the rule of law in land transactions. If managed poorly, it may lead to increased investor caution, litigation, and reputational harm for state or federal agencies.
For stakeholders like you reading this – whether you’re in real estate, policy, investment or media — this is a moment to register closely. Monitor the legal actions, demand clarity on titles, and assess how this affects your interest in Oyo State or Nigeria’s wider land market.
This story not only matters today — it will resonate for years, as more states review idle land portfolios and more investors ask: “Who really owns this land, and can I trust the title?”
0 Comments