(International real estate practitioners knock Lagos Govt)

The Nigerian chapter of the International Real Estate Federation has frowned at the description of 176 estates in Lagos by the state government as “illegal”.

It said the action of the state’s Physical Planning and Urban Development Ministry had not only caused many Diasporan subscribers to the estates to demand a refund of their money from their developers.

The 176 estates are predominantly located in the Eti-Osa, Ajah, Ibeju-Lekki, and Epe axis of the state.

The government, which said the estates were deemed illegal due to their failure to obtain layout approvals, gave the developers 21 days to regularise their documents or risk their closure.

In a statement yesterday, FIABCI Nigeria President Akin Opatola said it was unfortunate that the government, whose responsibility is to save lives and property, announced a list that sent panic and fear into the market, thereby endangering people’s investment

He said the government ought to have convened a meeting with the developers and other players in the real estate sector instead of endangering people’s investment.

Opatola added that the ministry should have first arranged the list of the 176 estates in a tabular form, showing the level of compliance with the layout approval guidelines by the developers.

“It would have been in a tabular form, like 30 of these 176 estates have reached 70 per cent regularization of their layout and survey. Probably in a month, the government will come out with another list that another number of developers have met the mark,” he said.

According to him, there is “no doubt there will be some bad egg developers”.

The FIABCI president argued that a phased categorization of the developers would have stabilized the real estate sector, unlike what has happened, where Diasporans and other subscribers were put in panic.

Director of Strategy, Female Lawyers in Real Estate, Adaku Ochuma, noted that the government’s use of “illegal” could mean deviation from initial approval, layout amendment, and not habitable for the purpose.

She said: “The government should have used a better term. Calling the estates illegal didn’t send the right message to the real estate ecosystem.

“Illegal means the developers don’t own the structures where they are and, therefore, are not fit to be in business. A better strategy would have been something like putting out a message that the government would like to meet with the developer of the affected estates.” (The Nation)