Compensation for Expropriated Community Farmland in Nigeria: An In-Depth Analysis of the Laws and Practices Related to Land Expropriation for the Lekki Free Trade Zone in Lagos

Abstract

Abstract:In Nigeria, the recurring impoverishment and other negative socioeconomic impacts endured by landholders affected by expropriation are well-documented and call into question the Land Use Act's (LUA) effectiveness in protecting local land rights. The World Bank's Land Governance Assessment Framework found that, in Nigeria, "a large number of acquisitions occurs without prompt and adequate compensation, thus leaving those losing land worse off, with no mechanism for independent appeal even though the land is often not utilized for a public purpose". Such negative outcomes may be due to a number of factors, including corruption, limited capacity, and insufficient financing as well as Nigeria's weak legal framework. According to a recent study of compensation procedures established in national laws of 50 countries, Nigeria's compensation procedure lags behind many of the countries assessed because the LUA mostly fails to adopt international standards on the valuation of compensation. This article examines Nigerian expropriation and compensation procedures in more detail by combining both an in-depth legal analysis of Nigeria's expropriation laws as well as survey and qualitative research that indicates, to some extent, how expropriation laws function in practice in Nigeria. Based on our legal assessment, surveys, and interviews with both government and private sector officials involved in the LFTZ, we found that the Nigerian government failed to comply with international standards on expropriation and compensation, both in terms of its laws and its practices in the LFTZ case. This article expands our conference paper written for the UN Economic Commission of Africa Conference on Land Policy in Africa, which took place in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia in November of 2017. Under Nigeria's LUA, affected landholders are not granted the right to participate in expropriation and compensation decision-making or otherwise be consulted on matters affecting their land and livelihoods. In 2004, the LUA enabled the Lagos State government to set aside 16,500 hectares of expropriated agricultural land from Lagos coastal communities to develop the Lekki Free Trade Zone (LFTZ). Following the expropriation, the Lagos State Government (LSG) and Lekki Worldwide Investment Limited signed a Memorandum of Understand (MOU) with nine affected communities in 2007. The MOU is a legally binding document that promises compensation, alternative land, jobs, healthcare, and educational opportunities to the communities affected by expropriation. However, our research suggests that the MOU has not been fully honored. According to a survey of 140 affected households conducted in August 2017, the government still had not paid sufficient compensation to all affected communities or had not yet provided them with suitable alternative land, jobs, equity shares and other entitlements promised by the MOU. While there are several reasons why the MOU has not been honored, this article mainly focuses on the failure of the LUA to establish binding obligations...

Indicators for Measuring Spatial Justice and Land Tenure Security for Poor and Low Income Urban Dwellers

“…This allows the local community to adopt strategies that preserve its rights over land resources for their livelihoods [16,62,70]. However, when spatial development programmes infringe upon those land rights, the pursuit of procedural justice in combination with recognition and redistribution permits the design and implementation of rules and strategies for fair compensation to affected people so that they can continue their lives [62,[96][97][98]. In a nutshell, recognition justice promotes land tenure security through the respect and protection of all people's right to land resources through inclusive and participatory management of land resources.…”

“…Such compensation has to be paid within a determined time (time span for compensation) which has to be determined by the law guiding the expropriation in any country [98]. 6.…”

Understanding Land in the Context of Large-Scale Land Acquisitions: A Brief History of Land in Economics

“…Surprisingly, the question of the (correct) determination of land value appears to have been somehow avoided by LSLAs literature so far. Besides few scattered references to the price of land allegedly paid in one large-scale land deal or another, only the literature investigating the issue of fair compensation for local populations and indigenous communities affected by LSLAs, expressed a more systematic interest in the land value issue [31]. For instance, in his essay addressing fair compensation in transnational land deals, De Maria [32] discussed the controversial aspects related to the correct determination of land value using a law and economics perspective.…”

Expropriation of Real Property in Kigali City: Scoping the Patterns of Spatial Justice

“…This paper discusses expropriation by making reference to the power of government agencies 1 to interfere in individual real property rights and acquire their properties in order to serve public purposes or social benefits [11]. It refers similarly to government power of eminent domain, compulsory purchase or acquisition of private real property for public interest [12]. The expropriation involves compensation for the acquired properties which can be paid in monetary form or in any other form based on mutual agreement between the expropriating agency and property owners [11,13].…”

“…The amended law provides clear procedures which have to be followed by actors in the expropriation in order to determine fair or just compensation value which should be paid to expropriated people. Just compensation value is the value of the expropriated property which is determined at market price [12]. Procedures that may lead to just compensation and which are stated in the current Rwandan expropriation law include the use of updated reference prices, which are determined on the basis of the market prices, for the real properties affected by expropriation and the counter-assessment of the proposed compensation value in the case expropriated people are not satisfied with it [11].…”