PROFESSIONAL planners under the auspices of the Nathaniel Atebije Foundation for Planning Advocacy (NAFPA) have called on the Federal Government to safeguard statutory planning frameworks amid concerns over recent administrative actions by the Office of the Surveyor-General of the Federation (OSGOF).

In a detailed memorandum addressed to President Bola Tinubu and submitted by the Co-Founder of NAFPA, Nathaniel Atebije, the group commended the administration’s political will in strengthening inter-agency coordination, reinforcing development control and integrating physical planning into national economic and social development strategies.

The planners described the administration’s posture as a departure from years of fragmented and reactive urban governance, noting that aligning political leadership with professional planning principles has laid a foundation for more liveable cities, efficient land use and orderly human settlements.

“Physical planning is not a peripheral technical function,” the memorandum stated, “but a strategic instrument for national transformation capable of defining Nigeria’s spatial future.”

However, the group raised concerns over a recent press statement issued by OSGOF announcing the constitution of a Committee on Land Use and Allocation, inaugurated on January 16, 2026. While the office described the move as part of reforms to strengthen land administration, planners argued that the development presents legal and institutional contradictions.

They explained that Nigeria’s urban governance system is anchored on three principal statutes: the Land Use Act, which centralises land ownership and allocation; the Nigerian Urban and Regional Planning Act, which governs spatial planning and development control; and various state-level planning laws.

Globally, the planners noted, land administration, covering ownership, tenure and cadastral boundaries, is distinct from land use planning, which involves zoning, spatial structure and development control.

Although Nigeria’s legal framework reflects this distinction, distortions have emerged where land allocation precedes planning or where technical agencies extend into regulatory domains not assigned to them by statute.

They stressed that OSGOF’s mandate is primarily technical, focusing on geodetic control, mapping, cadastral surveys and geospatial data coordination. It does not include land allocation, zoning, development approvals or preparation of master plans, functions reserved for planning authorities under existing laws.

Of particular concern, they said, is the reported assignment of shoreline planning and management to OSGOF, alongside the establishment of a Land Use and Allocation Committee within the office. According to the memorandum, shoreline management involves environmental zoning, development control, climate adaptation and resettlement planning, core competencies of physical planners.

The stakeholders further alleged that the composition of the newly constituted committee does not reflect the multidisciplinary balance envisaged under the Land Use Act. They warned that limited professional representation could weaken the committee’s technical robustness and expose its decisions to litigation.

They cautioned that reversing the statutory sequence, allocating land before preparing approved physical development plans, could fuel speculation, informal settlements, boundary disputes and environmental degradation. “Planning creates order, value and equity,” the document stressed, “while allocation merely assigns rights within that planned order.”

As part of their recommendations, the planners urged the president to reverse the assignment of shoreline management to OSGOF, reaffirm that land-use regulation and development control fall under planning authorities, and consider establishing a Federal Ministry of Physical Planning and the Office of the Town Planner-General of the Federation.

IN a related development, the Nigerian Institute of Town Planners (NITP) has also urged the President to immediately disband the newly inaugurated Land Use and Allocation Committee, describing it as unlawful and outside OSGOF’s statutory mandate.

In a letter signed by its President, Ogbonna Chime, the institute described the action as “ultra vires, illegal and professionally inappropriate,” warning that it could trigger institutional conflict and undermine established land administration frameworks.

The institute cited provisions of the Land Use Act, which stipulate that a Land Use and Allocation Committee shall be established in each state by the governor, with advisory responsibilities relating to land management and compensation. It noted that the Act does not confer such powers on OSGOF.

The NITP also referenced the 2003 Supreme Court judgment in Attorney-General of Lagos State & 35 Others v. Attorney-General of the Federation, which held that urban and regional planning is a residual matter, except in the Federal Capital Territory.

“Statutorily, the mandate of OSGOF is limited to surveying, mapping, geospatial data management and boundary delineation,” the institute stated. “Land use allocation and development control do not fall within its competence.”

The development is expected to reignite debate over federal and state powers in land administration, particularly amid ongoing reforms in urban planning and property regulation nationwide.