Professional town planners operating under the Nathaniel Atebije Foundation for Planning Advocacy (NAFPA) have urged President Bola Tinubu to safeguard Nigeria’s statutory planning framework amid concerns over recent administrative actions by the Office of the Surveyor-General of the Federation (OSGOF).
In a memorandum submitted to the President, NAFPA commended the administration’s efforts to strengthen inter-agency coordination, enhance development control, and integrate physical planning into broader economic and social development strategies. The group described the current approach as a marked shift from what it termed years of fragmented and reactive urban governance.
According to the planners, aligning political leadership with professional planning principles provides a foundation for sustainable cities, orderly settlements, and efficient land utilisation. They emphasised that physical planning should be regarded as a strategic national development instrument rather than a peripheral technical function.
However, the group expressed concern over a recent announcement by OSGOF regarding the constitution of a Committee on Land Use and Allocation, reportedly inaugurated on January 16, 2026. While the move was presented as part of ongoing land administration reforms, the planners argued that it raises legal and institutional inconsistencies.
They explained that Nigeria’s land governance architecture is primarily anchored on three legal instruments: the Land Use Act, which centralises land ownership and allocation; the Nigerian Urban and Regional Planning Act, which regulates spatial planning and development control; and corresponding state planning laws.
Globally, they noted, land administration—covering ownership, tenure systems, and cadastral mapping—is distinct from land-use planning, which involves zoning, spatial design, and development regulation. Although Nigeria’s legal framework recognises this distinction, the planners warned that distortions arise when land allocation precedes approved planning schemes or when agencies exceed their statutory mandates.
The memorandum stressed that OSGOF’s mandate is largely technical, focusing on geodetic control, cadastral surveys, mapping, boundary delineation, and geospatial data coordination. It does not extend to land allocation, zoning decisions, development approvals, or master plan preparation—functions assigned to planning authorities under existing laws.
Of particular concern is the reported assignment of shoreline planning and management responsibilities to OSGOF, alongside the creation of a Land Use and Allocation Committee within the office. The planners argued that shoreline governance involves environmental zoning, climate adaptation, development control, and resettlement planning—core competencies of certified physical planners.
They further alleged that the composition of the newly constituted committee lacks the multidisciplinary representation envisaged under the Land Use Act. Limited professional inclusion, they warned, could weaken the technical integrity of its decisions and expose them to potential legal challenges.
The group cautioned that altering the statutory sequence—allocating land before preparing approved development plans—could encourage speculation, informal settlements, boundary conflicts, and environmental degradation. According to the memorandum, planning establishes structure, equity, and value, while allocation merely assigns rights within an already structured framework.
Among its recommendations, NAFPA urged the President to reverse the assignment of shoreline management to OSGOF, reaffirm that land-use regulation and development control remain under planning authorities, and consider establishing a Federal Ministry of Physical Planning alongside the Office of the Town Planner-General of the Federation.
In a related development, the Nigerian Institute of Town Planners (NITP) also called for the immediate dissolution of the newly inaugurated Land Use and Allocation Committee. In a letter signed by its President, Ogbonna Chime, the institute described the action as beyond OSGOF’s statutory powers and professionally inappropriate.
The institute cited provisions of the Land Use Act, which require each state governor to establish a Land Use and Allocation Committee with advisory responsibilities on land management and compensation matters. It maintained that the Act does not vest such authority in OSGOF.
NITP further referenced the 2003 Supreme Court judgment in Attorney-General of Lagos State & 35 Others v. Attorney-General of the Federation, which held that urban and regional planning falls within the residual legislative powers of states, except in the Federal Capital Territory.
The controversy is expected to intensify ongoing debates over the balance of federal and state authority in land administration, particularly as reforms in urban planning and property regulation continue nationwide.
