According to the state, revoked land allocations automatically revert to state ownership and may be reassigned when allotments are left undeveloped or are misused. The commissioner argued that the reallocation process followed statutory land management protocols and was aimed at restoring productive use, protecting public interest, and removing security risks posed by derelict properties. This position challenges the Federal Ministry’s warning — signed by Permanent Secretary Shuaib Belgore — which cautioned Nigerians against buying or claiming ownership of several listed properties in Oyo State on the grounds that they remain federal assets.
Background: a history of abandonment and enforcement
Oyo’s position is grounded in a continuing campaign by the state to take back and sanitize abandoned or illegally occupied government lands. In recent months Oyo has demolished illegal structures on acquired government land, moved to reclaim derelict buildings that have become security liabilities, and revoked allocations where land use had been altered or neglected. The state argues these steps are consistent with existing state laws and necessary to stem land grabbing and lawlessness.
Those enforcement actions — including demolitions of illegal buildings in areas such as Podo and Dizengoff in Ibadan — have been publicly documented and form part of the administration’s broader land-management agenda. The Oyo government says that these practical enforcement measures demonstrate its commitment to reclaiming dormant public assets and returning them to productive development or formal allocation channels.
Where the legal gap appears
The dispute highlights a recurring fault line in Nigerian land governance: overlapping claims and unclear boundaries between federal and state land registries, coupled with weak coordination among agencies. When a state revokes a previously granted allocation for reasons such as abandonment, the state contends the land reverts to its control. The Federal Ministry, by contrast, may maintain that certain parcels are still in the federal domain — prompting public notices to deter transactions flagged as “illegal.” The disagreement demonstrates why a harmonized national registry and routine intergovernmental verification are crucial to prevent this kind of public confusion.
Political and practical consequences
Beyond legal technicalities, the public messaging tussle has immediate consequences for landowners, property buyers, developers, and communities. When different tiers of government issue conflicting statements on land ownership, prospective investors face heightened transaction risk and uncertainty — a disincentive at a time when local governments are actively seeking investments in housing and infrastructure. Residents in affected communities have also protested in other instances when land allocations appeared opaque or contested, underscoring the social stakes in land administration.
What both sides should do next
Legal experts and land-policy observers suggest three immediate steps to reduce tension and protect citizens:
1. Joint verification: The Federal Ministry and Oyo State should establish a joint verification committee to publish an authoritative map and list of disputed parcels, including the legal basis for any revocations or federal claims.
2. Public registry access: Publish clear, timestamped ownership and allocation records online to improve transparency and reduce the market shock of sudden public notices.
3. Mediation, not press notices: Use intergovernmental mediation and legal channels before issuing public buy/no-buy advisories that affect ordinary buyers and small investors.
These actions could restore market confidence, reduce community tensions, and help prevent the kind of back-and-forth that leaves ordinary citizens trapped between conflicting notifications.
Bottom line
The Oyo Government’s public rebuttal makes a compelling operational claim: that revoked allocations, after statutory procedure, no longer belong to previous allottees — federal or otherwise — and are therefore within the state’s power to reassign. The Federal Ministry’s counter-notice, meanwhile, reflects an institutional caution against transactions that might purport to confer ownership over contested parcels. For buyers, developers, and residents, the immediate takeaway is clear: demand certified land records and insist on intergovernmental verification before transacting. Until both parties resolve the issue through shared documentation or the courts, ambiguity will continue to hamper investment and inflame local disputes.
0 Comments