 The Nigerian Bar Association and some Senior Advocates of Nigeria and the Oeosteig Governor Shea Macindey have cautioned President Mohammad Bahari against amending the Land Use Act, while the NBA and senior lawyers said the federal government's move was unconstitutional. Macindey stated that he would not support it. Earlier, the Secretary to the Government of the Federation, boss Mustafa, had said the federal government was reviewing the Land Use Act of 1978. Mustafa said the review would take out sections of the Act that inhibited economic development. Joining us to discuss this is Tunji Abdul Amid. He's a lawyer and of course Elvis Asya, both of them lawyers. Thank you very much gentlemen for joining us. Thank you very much. Tunji, why do you think the NBA is cautioning Mr President against this Land Use Act review? Is there something wrong with reviewing it? I mean, because boss Mustafa has said that in his words, it inhibits economic development. I am surprised that the question is coming up. I don't know why they are cautioning the federal government. As far as I'm concerned, the comment by the condemnation of the review, or by our calling to a non-constitutional, is premature as far as I'm concerned, is speculative, because we have not even seen the review they are talking about. I probably want to do a big national assembly. Probably they want to do the necessary steps they are taking. So it will be premature for us to say it is non-constitutional for now. But I don't know what the NBA is talking about when they say it is going to oppose it, except it's not done in line with the law, which in other words, no review of a Land Use Act can be effective, except it passes through the national assembly for the hard to be amended. So if that is being done, I don't see what is on the agenda about that, except they want to just amend the constitution at the Land Use Act without going through the national assembly in that circumstance, it will be unconstitutional for them to do that. But as it is today, I cannot say that, because I am not aware of any steps being taken to do that now. You are free to review. When you review it, you can come up with your own position, probably in terms of build or in terms of suggestions to those who want to bring out the pay for them to be passed by the national assembly. As far as I'm concerned, it will be premature, it will be speculative, for us to say it is not proper as it is now. Mr Asya, do you hold the same opinion with Tundi, because he seems to say that there's nothing to be worried about if it's a review, then it's a review. But then, of course, the NBA and certain people have spoken up against it, calling it unconstitutional. But it's a review. Do you have any concerns? Well, I think what Tundi has said is largely correct in the sense that it's largely premature to begin to talk about the constitutionality of a process that has never been started. The constitution is very clear on how you can amend the lines act. The lines act can only have the amended. In a manner, as if you are a amended constitution, you just started such a line of the constitution. So, and then again, we haven't seen what exactly they want to amend. So it's really premature to begin to talk about the constitutionality of a process. But I understand where the fear is coming from, from the governors, from the NBA and the stakeholders. The fear is that this amendment is not all connected with the attempt by the federal government to still maintain grazing routes in respect to the issue that, you know, in respect to farmer-header clashes over the country. I think that this appears to be the fear that we will have. Because, I mean, if you look at it, we have all clamored for the review of lines act over the years. In fact, since the first week the act was enacted, there are very lot of criticism in respect to the amendment of the act. You know, there are so many problems with the act in respect to registration, seeking consent, and the fact that that frustrates process of land documentation across the country. So there is a, you know, genuine need for the act to be amended. But I believe the fear is has to do with the phenagomestand on open grazing, which is seriously a cake and a call for at this time of our national development. I'm back to you, Tunji. I'm going to quote the or your state governor and the Boeing state governor, Shea McIndy, and he's a Boeing counterpart, Umahi. They are advising Mr President to not take steps to take away land control from the state, saying that it is unconstitutional being that according to them, according to the constitution, the power and ownership of land lies with the state. And just as Asya has said, do you think that the federal government really is insistent and wants to take the powers of the state away from it by reviewing this constitution, this act? And why would that be? I think it is funny to me in the sense that, look, there is no way the president can change the provision of the constitution of the land use act without going to the proper amendment. There is no way it can't happen. It can't happen when a country ruled by law or governed by law. So in other words, if any attempt to review, change, author or whatever of the land use act, I think probably it will be sent to the National Assembly and at that level, everybody will be involved. You know, like I said, there is no way you can amend land use act without the information of the National Assembly and without the information of the other assembly of the states. So at that level, there is no way the president can amend any provision of the constitution or change or take the power away from the governor without any amendment of the land use act. So it will be improper for me to say it will happen because I don't see it how it will happen without the president doesn't have such power and he can't do that. So I don't expect that he will do that. Probably they want to do a bid to the National Assembly. He can do a bid to say, okay, remove the power. If the bid is scared through at the National Assembly and the House of Assembly, so be it. But if it will not scared, if it didn't scared through, you know, for you to pile that bid into law, after amend that land use act, you must go to the request of the amended constitution, which means you must have two-third of the members of the National Assembly agreeing to it. You must have two-third of the members of the House of Assembly in the states agreeing to it. In other words, the first, the second, the process must take place. So I don't see how the president on his own just take away the power from the governor without the appointment of the National Assembly and the House of Assembly of the states. So it's going to be impossible for anybody or any individual to just take away the power as given by the National Use Act on that section one. That section empowers the governor to hold the land in trust for the country, for the people in the states. So it should be proper for anybody. So my own constitution for anybody. Nobody has such power to individually take away the power. And thinking from the position, Elvis, this is for you. A position, I mean we all saw that interview by Malami speaking up on the issue of open grazing. We also heard Mr. President also throw his weight behind the issue of open grazing and axed expressly that Mr Malami review the issue of grazing routes. Now, if the president has seen that this is the process that this review has to go through, is there room for an executive order in regards to these grazing routes being brought back alive? No, it's not possible to buy an executive order that began to go back to open grazing. The law is very clear on who controls land and that is the governor's and various states' levels. The president cannot buy any order. There's no law that gives the president the power to change that or to revisit this issue of open grazing. And it is quite sad that at this stage of our national development we are still talking about open grazing. What we should be talking about is how heathsmen and other people are interested in how they can do ranching. They can even maximize the business and make more profits for the nation. So to begin to talk about open grazing, it's really quite sad. And I believe this is the genuine reason why a lot of stakeholders are raising eyebrows now at this time. Like I said earlier, there has been calls for the amendment of life act and the presidency hasn't done much in that regard yet. But in the midst of this discussion with respect to open grazing, to now start revisiting the amendment process is really what is getting people worried. But I cannot show you that there's no constitutional or statutory condition that powers the president to issue any directive, whether by way of executive order or otherwise, to give legal backing to this idea of open grazing. The president has the power. I think every women in Nigeria should oppose any attempt to take us back to the age that has been abandoned by other countries. Okay. There are those who have said that the land use act puts Nigeria in a 300 billion naira debt. Tungi. And like I said, the Institute of Estates Surveyors in Nigeria have been quoted to say that the review of the act will take out sections of that same act that inhibits economic development. So in your opinion, looking at knowing what the content of the land use act of 1978 is, what are those parts that you think inhibits the growth of our economy and 300 billion naira is a lot of money? What exactly in that land use act would help us to get past this? Most probably they are likely talking about the process of obtaining governor's consent because we know under land use act, section 21, 22 of land use act, before you can alienate, transfer, or move your property, you must obtain governor's consent. Most states are taking this process as a means of making money. In legacy, for instance, it is a lot of money to process your registration of your documents. So probably people are not taking these processes. They are not doing it because of the financial involvement in it. So I think, and for instance, if you want to grow money in bank or you want to do businesses, you want to use a lot to access security for loan, without it being registered, you cannot use that. Probably that theory that they are looking at, look, without this review of this consent process, it may be it is in beating people from engaging in the business or engaging in getting finance to do, to carry out their businesses. Probably that is the area they are looking at in terms of economic loss. So the process of obtaining consent in some states is cumbersome. In some states, it is much. So it involves a lot of finance for you to sometimes, in fact, in some states, the amounts you purchase land, the amounts you will be using in processing the consent may even be more than the amount, the price of the land itself. So that invades people from going ahead and perfecting property. And in that regard, you will not be able to use land to secure any advantage in terms of getting finance from anywhere. Probably that is the area they are looking at. I want to also agree that those areas should be refilled and it should be made simple so that people will not be involved in spending a lot of money in obtaining the consent. It is not a source of income for most states. They make a lot of money, particularly in legal states in terms of consent. I am back to you, Elvis, before we wrap this up. For the NBA and lawyers who seem to be opposing this, should the idea not be carrying more people along to be part of the review process to educate people on making sure that they are taken along when the National Assembly decides to review this and make their impuse because, of course, whatever is the outcome of this review will have to live with the consequences? Right. The duty of the NBA and other stakeholders should be when there is a proper bee before the National Assembly, for them to put in their impute because at some point during the legislative process, members of the public are allowed to recommend, they are allowed to participate in the public hearing. And so groups like the NBA and others stakeholders will have the opportunity to make their imputes and then they can also mobilize other people to be part of the process. So I don't think the best way to do to participate in the process is to attack the process that has not even started. We have not seen the draft bill, you know, and so that is not the proper way to go about this. You are right with respect to the fact that the process would be that they would be mobilized people to be part of the process of imagining the book. There is the genuine need for men. I like to just say there are other issues, you know, that are impeding progress in the development of the country under the United Act. For example, do you know that the certificate of occupancy that is issued is not guaranteed that you have title to learn? It is simply prima facie evidence of title and somebody else who actually have title can come around and set aside your certificate of occupancy. We don't want to have that process. We want to have a process where you have a sea of hope. It is genuine. It gives guarantee that you have a good title. And there are other issues. We have seen abuse of power by the governors. In the allocation of land, people allocate governors and looking lands in their counties, in their family members, and so there has to be some checks and balances in the process of the powers of the governor to allocate land under the United Act. So, I think we all should, you know, share our thoughts. Let's see what bill will come out of this information that was shared by most of us. But, you know, like I said, again, you know, I mean, you can never take it away from an agenda system. Well, I want to say thank you to you, Tundia Abdulhamid, and Elvis Asya for speaking with us. We appreciate it. Thank you very much. All right. Well, thank you all for staying with us. We'll take a very short break and when we return, we'll be giving you our take. Here's my take. Now, are we really moving forward as a country? I mean, look around you. In the past five to six years, have you felt any positive change? Have our leaders at least, I mean, attempted to do anything that seems to plunge us to the top? Have we topped the poverty lists? I mean, because look, the truth is, we have topped the poverty list. We've topped the worst places to live in. The least peaceful country in the world, et cetera, have any of our policies that the government have put out or strategies championed by these leadership helped us to get to a better place? What about the obedience to the rule of law? Do they live and die by it? Or do they pick and choose which they want to obey and which ones they want to ditch? How responsible are these leaders? I mean, or have they just been called leaders in name? Ask yourself as a Nigerian, what has this government and country really done for you? That leader that says he's got your best interest at heart. Do you really see it in their actions? So dear Nigerians, what are you going to do? What is our fate? Do we fold our arms and and keep watching from the sidelines as these people continue to take us for granted and and watch this ship steered and miss? We do not want to sit back and watch all of this. So we need to get smart. Now, no more sitting on the fence. I am Mary Annacol. Thank you for watching. Have a good evening.