Lagos — The report that President Umaru Yar'Adua has forwarded a bill for the amendment of the controversial Land Use Act to the National Assembly is indeed heart-warming.

To be cited as "The Land Use (Amendment) Act 2009" or "The Constitution (First Amendment) Act 2009, the proposed amendment is said to be in line with pledges made by the President in his inaugural address to amend the Act towards promoting the rapid economic development in the country.

Promulgated in 1978 as Land Use Decree, it was incorporated into the 1979 Constitution and retained in the 1999 Constitution with all its imperfections that have, over the years, fuelled calls for its outright abrogation or at best a comprehensive review.

In truth, the Act could have been promulgated with some good intentions, as it attempted to democratise landholding system in the country. It sought, for instance, to ensure, protect and preserve the rights of all Nigerians to use and enjoy land and the fruits thereof, against the background of the restrictions placed on this crucial factor of production by the erstwhile customary land tenure system, which made land the exclusive property of so-called "land lords", families who, by mere virtue of their forefathers being the first to settle on the parcel of land, have now assumed its "ownership".

The Act states in its Part I Section 1 that land was to be "held in trust and administered (by the government) for the use and common benefit of all Nigerians". Lofty as its intentions are, however, it was a matter of time before the Act became a piece of dysfunctional legislation. Certain obstacles, probably not foreseen by formulators of the law, invariably cropped up during its implementation. These obstacles, including tenureship complexities, limited access to land by federal and local governments as well as foreigners, non-implementation of land ceiling, insecurity of certificate of occupancy, inhibiting consent provisions, high cost of land transactions and non-enforcement of development permission, are the kernel of sections 5, 7, 15, 21, 22, 23, and 28 of the Act that are slated for review.

Most of the state governors in whose care the "people's land" is entrusted by this Act have demonstrably failed to make the land easily accessible to the people for their "use and common benefit". Instead, people in government have merely upstaged the local land speculators and assumed that same pernicious role as most governors and officials in charge of land dispensary have suddenly become multiple landowners by virtue of their offices.

The Act also concentrates too much power in the hands of state governors, who often exploit this for economic and political reasons to the detriment of other stakeholders, including even the federal and local governments as well as individuals who might require lands for industrial and agricultural developments.

Sections 21 and 22 prescribe the requirement of a governor's consent for the alienation of customary and statutory rights of occupancy, the procurement of which is however characterized by long and frustrating delay. For this reason, most holders of right of occupancy evade the consent provisions, leading to multiplicity of imperfect titles.

We support any amendment of the Act that will remove this obstacle and especially curtail the limitless power it gives to state governors in land matters.

This is one assignment on which the National Assembly cannot afford to waste time. Thus, it should expedite action on the passage of the bill after thorough examination. We also hope that the amendment would not fail to attract the endorsement of the stipulated number of state Houses of Assembly.

Land is a key factor of production. The time is now for the nation to really make land easily accessible to individuals and corporate organizations interested in commercial agriculture, industrialization or even housing estates.