In Edo State, land is never just dirt. It is history, inheritance, politics, and occasionally a full-contact sport. For years the system ran on a toxic mix of customary claims, Community Development Associations that behaved like private armies, multiple sales of the same plot, and a Certificate of Occupancy process so slow it could age a bottle of wine. Successive administrations have declared reform. The results have been a mixture of genuine progress, inherited messes, political score-settling, and the familiar Nigerian talent for turning every administrative problem into a morality play about fraud.
The Pre-Reform Landscape
Before the late 2010s, land administration in Edo was largely manual, opaque, and vulnerable to capture. Community Development Associations (CDAs) and their offshoots extracted “settlement” fees, enforced claims with intimidation, and made formal titling a distant dream for many. Multiple allocations of the same parcel were common. Obtaining a Certificate of Occupancy could take years and cost far more than the official fees suggested. The 1978 Land Use Act already concentrated radical title in the governor; the practical effect on the ground was confusion layered on confusion.
The Obaseki-Era Push (Roughly 2017–2024)
Governor Godwin Obaseki’s administration made land reform a signature project. Key moves included:
- Creation of the Edo State Geographical Information Service (EdoGIS) around 2017–2018. The agency was designed to digitise records, move applications online, cut processing times, and slash costs. Officials claimed C of O fees fell by as much as 80 per cent and that a properly documented application could be completed in months rather than years.
- Criminalisation of land grabbing and CDA activities. Working with the Oba of Benin, who banned CDA operations, the state passed and later strengthened the Private Property Protection Law (2017, re-enacted/amended 2021). Penalties included mandatory terms of up to ten years for forceful takeover, armed trespass, and related offences. A Private Property Protection Implementation Committee was set up to investigate and prosecute.
- Mass digitisation of legacy files (tens of thousands claimed) and a noticeable increase in fresh C of O issuance. The government presented these as evidence that Edo was becoming investment-friendly.
The reforms reduced some of the most blatant racketeering and gave the state a modern cadastral platform. They did not, however, eliminate backlogs, incomplete applications, or overlapping claims. Political opponents later accused the administration of selective allocations and inadequate consultation with communities on large agricultural concessions.
The Okpebholo Transition and Current Policies (From Late 2024)
When Senator Monday Okpebholo took office, EdoGIS inherited a reported backlog of more than 3,500 applications. The new administration’s public line has been that many of those files contained fake survey plans, incomplete documentation, or multiple competing claims. Verification exercises followed. Officials have said more than 1,000 certificates have been prepared and signed for collection, while warning of forthcoming demolitions of illegal structures on government land.
Structural changes have been sharp:
- The Ministry of Lands and Housing was scrapped; its core functions were folded into EdoGIS, which now operates as the central land administration agency. New leadership was appointed and the agency placed under closer executive oversight.
- A fresh Public Property Protection Law (2025) created a statutory committee to identify, seal, and recover state-owned land and assets. Unauthorised sale or transfer of government property attracts five years’ imprisonment; violent or forceful entry can attract up to ten. Professionals who facilitate illegal transactions face prosecution and professional sanctions.
- Emphasis on digital tools, online applications, property searches, and revenue collection through ground rent and property taxes. Outstations have been opened or expanded to reduce the Benin City bottleneck.
- Agricultural land policy has been formalised through the Framework for Responsible and Inclusive Land-Intensive Agriculture (FRILIA). Executive orders and detailed toolkits cover stakeholder engagement, grievance redress, resettlement, valuation and compensation, environmental and social risk management, and model agreements between government, investors, and communities. The stated aim is to attract large-scale agribusiness while reducing the conflicts that previously arose from poorly consulted allocations of forest reserves and farmland.
The current government has also moved to reverse or reallocate some high-profile disputed parcels (for example in Oke-Oroma) that were affected by earlier demolitions or allocations, presenting these steps as restorative justice.
Persistent Frictions
Several problems refuse to disappear. Applicants still report long periods of silence after submission. Official explanations cite inherited deficiencies and the need for rigorous verification; critics counter that the verification process itself became a bottleneck and that communication with applicants has been poor. Diaspora applicants are repeatedly warned against agents, yet the market for intermediaries has not vanished. Overlapping customary and statutory claims remain difficult to resolve quickly. Large agricultural investments continue to generate tension with host communities even under the new FRILIA framework.
Political narratives add heat. The previous administration is accused of having treated land as political capital; the present one is accused of freezing the system while conducting inquiries and of governing by selective outrage rather than steady administrative process. Both sides can point to numbers that support their preferred story.
Where Things Stand
Edo now has a digital land registry, lower official fees on paper, criminal sanctions against classic land grabbing, a specialised agency instead of a traditional ministry, and a formal framework for responsible agribusiness investment. These are real institutional upgrades compared with the pre-2017 chaos. At the same time, the gap between policy announcements and the lived experience of ordinary applicants remains wide. Backlogs, document quality issues, and the perennial temptation to use land administration for political signalling have not been abolished by digitisation or new laws.
Land reform in Edo is therefore less a completed project than a continuing contest between the desire for clean titles, the realities of incomplete paperwork and overlapping rights, and the political incentives of successive governors. The soil is patient. The paperwork, less so.
Centre for Nigeria Progress 