•Oyeleke Ajiboye
The Chief Executive Officer of Efficacy Development PLC and a leading real estate expert in Lagos State with over two decades of experience, Dr. Oyeleke Ajiboye, has given valuable insights regarding land purchases, warning unsuspecting public against falling victims to land grabbers.
He highlighted the tactics used by land grabbers and certain “Omoonile” (local landowners) who falsely present themselves as customary landowners, deceiving individuals and leading them to lose their hard-earned money when purchasing property, particularly in areas under government schemes and those subject to government acquisition, as indicated in the 1993 acquisition gazette.
Oyeleke explained that the Lagos State Government has historically acquired large tracts of land in Ibeju-Lekki for public interest purposes, including urban development, housing schemes, schools, and hospitals, reports Daily Independent.
This acquisition, he noted, is grounded in the Land Use Act of 1978, which entrusts control of urban land to the state government.
A significant portion of land in Ibeju-Lekki, he said, was acquired through Official Gazette No. 20 Vol. 26, published on May 13, 1993, revoking occupancy rights for approximately 823.0 km² of land extending from Maroko eastward to the Lagos Lagoon, Lekki Lagoon, and Omu Creek.
“This gazette notification serves as the legal foundation for the government’s acquisition and revocation of occupancy rights. The acquired land encompasses areas excluding established villages, towns, and settlements in Eti-Osa and Ibeju-Lekki Local Government Areas.
“The government’s acquisition prioritises public interest, promoting the development of low, medium, and high-income housing, schools, hospitals, and private estate developer schemes.”
Oyeleke noted that lands under government acquisition are divided into two categories: “Global Acquisition,” which refers to land that does not have a specific government purpose yet and may later be released via excision or ratification; and “Committed Acquisition,” which designates land for specific public projects (e.g., infrastructure and housing schemes). Land in committed acquisition zones cannot be sold or developed by individuals, communities or companies. Purchasing land in these zones is risky and may lead to demolition or loss of investment.
“It is important to recognise that some Omoonile often claim customary ownership of these lands.
“However, the Land Use Act of 1978, particularly Section 21, has diminished customary titles by requiring the Governor or Local Government’s consent for any alienation, which includes transfers, assignments, or mortgages of customary rights of occupancy.
“This effectively replaces the absolute traditional ownership of land with a statutory or deemed right of occupancy, thereby reducing the traditional control that existed under native law and custom — this is known as the “abolition of freehold titles’.
“Nonetheless, in Lagos State, original native landowners retain the right to land ownership, but they no longer hold the right of occupancy. The government typically conducts an expropriation of land, releasing portions of land within government-controlled areas to recognise indigenous communities, private individuals, or families.
“The Land Use Act allows communities to apply to have some of their ancestral land returned to them through a process known as excision. After land acquisition, the government intends to compensate landowners by providing them with excised and gazetted land.
“However, one deceptive tactic used by some landowners involves selling land beyond the boundaries that the government has assigned to them or established.
“Another deceptive strategy used by land scammers is selling government land under acquisition to unsuspecting buyers. When the government intervenes, these buyers often request refunds or reassignment, realising they purchased land that wasn’t owned by the seller. The documents they possess do not actually cover the land sold to them.
“Facing potential accusations of fraud, which is a criminal offence, these scammers might quickly file a lawsuit to drag the matter into court while they explore other illegal ways to resolve their fraudulent transactions. They often claim ownership through customary rights and insist they are contesting the issue with the government. “This complex situation usually prevents innocent buyers from pursuing criminal charges against these perpetrators, as the scammers claim the matter is in court and ownership is contested.
“Additionally, these scammers may exploit law enforcement agencies to intimidate buyers and undermine their cases, even though law enforcement, particularly the police, is typically prohibited from interfering in land disputes that are civil matters meant for resolution in court. They might also apply for an interim injunction to restrict legitimate owners and delay justice, further complicating the situation. Judges familiar with these tactics often reject such applications and order expedited hearings to prevent undue suffering for the rightful owners.
“Despite court orders, these scammers continue to challenge decisions, wasting the time of the courts, the government, and legitimate investors. This enables them to deceive those who unwittingly purchased government-owned land. “Such tactics have become common among individuals involved in land fraud. Most court cases today revolve around land disputes or individuals challenging the government, even when their claims are baseless.”
A visit to various law enforcement agency offices would reveal that many cases being investigated primarily involve land-related issues, tactics used to evade punishment for selling illegal land. “Ultimately, the innocent buyers, unaware that they acquired government land, can find themselves in court for years, waiting for a verdict on an injunction that continues to prolong the process.
“Meanwhile, the legitimate investors suffer from unnecessary delays, as scammers intentionally frustrate the judicial process to extend their claims. In some instances, they may hire thugs, and the mere presence of these individuals can escalate matters into police issues. “There have been reports of violent incidents, including fatalities on-site, as well as the disturbing act of placing an unclaimed body from a mortuary at the location to fabricate a murder scene. A perpetrator might then claim that a family member was killed on the property, involving an unclaimed body. These horrific tactics are often unknown to the police but are crucial for the public to understand.
“When buying land, regardless of how appealing or trustworthy it may seem, it is essential to approach the process cautiously, as there are individuals who engage in unscrupulous behaviour.
“Many people who are purchasing land are unaware of the challenges faced by the government and its allottees. I was personally introduced to a plot of land in a strategic location, but after praying with my wife and discussing it with a senior mentor, I chose not to buy the property. Shortly after my decision, someone was killed on that land. The owner, whose money is now tied up in the investment, is facing numerous difficulties and potential financial losses.
“The judiciary and law enforcement should protect real estate investors. This situation serves as a wake-up call for society to address these issues, including the justice system, law enforcement, and the general public.
“To curb the actions of land grabbers, two measures could be effective. First, if individuals know that land-related court matters in Lagos State will be resolved within three months, they may reconsider their tactics. They would understand that they have a limited timeframe to either recover their investment or find an alternative solution.
“Secondly, any legal matters involving government land allocation should be directed to the Ministry of Justice or the Anti-Land Grabbers Committee before approaching the courts for intervention.
“This is the current state of the industry, which is causing many stakeholders to lose confidence. Developers and others with interests in the sector are beginning to withdraw, as no one wants to take unnecessary risks.”
