By Yomisaint Adebayo

There are government policies whose significance is announced with ceremonies, banners and speeches, and there are those whose importance becomes apparent only when they begin to change the way people live, transact, invest and relate with one another. The Anti-Land Grabbing and Property Protection policy of the Ondo State Government belongs to the latter category. It began as a response to a persistent problem, developed into legislation and has evolved into an institutional mechanism through which the State is changing the way land disputes, property rights and unlawful occupation are addressed.

On December 30, 2024, Governor Lucky Orimisan Aiyedatiwa signed the Ondo State Properties Protection and Its Documentation Law, 2024, popularly known as the Anti-Land Grabbing Law. But the story did not begin with the signing of the law. It began earlier, when the Governor issued Executive Order 4-2024 while the legislative process was still ongoing, signalling that land grabbing was being treated as a matter requiring direct government intervention. The law was subsequently backed by the inauguration of the State Task Force on Property Protection and Anti-Land Grabbing on May 28, 2025, creating a progression from executive action to legislation and then to an institutional mechanism for implementation.

The Task Force became the operational centre of that policy. Chaired by the Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice, Dr. Olukayode Ajulo, SAN, OON, it has benefited from his professional stewardship in translating the policy from a legislative framework into a practical system of property protection and enforcement. Under his leadership, the Task Force has provided the institutional bridge between the law and its application, bringing legal judgment, technical assessment, investigation, mediation and enforcement into a coordinated process.

The Committee brings together respected professionals and stakeholders, including the Commissioner of Police, the Commandant of the Amotekun Corps, the Surveyor-General, representatives of relevant ministries, local government representatives, community representatives and other distinguished figures, with a mandate covering the State’s 18 local government areas. Its work involves receiving petitions, examining documents, inviting parties, investigating claims and deploying legal and technical expertise where required. Under this structure, a citizen with a property complaint has a formal institutional channel through which the matter can be presented and examined, rather than being left to intimidation, private enforcement or self-help.

In resolving disputes, where dialogue, mediation or reconciliation can produce a lawful resolution, those avenues are explored. But where forceful occupation, unlawful acquisition, multiple sales, intimidation or other conduct falls within the law, enforcement will follow. That balance is important because the objective is not simply to increase arrests or prosecutions, but to restore lawful possession, prevent escalation and protect legitimate property rights.

The enforcement phase has demonstrated that the policy is not intended to be limited to people without influence. Traditional rulers, community figures, land agents, surveyors, religious figures and others have faced investigation or prosecution in cases where the authorities alleged conduct covered by the law. In this 2026, courts remanded monarchs, a high chief, a pastor and a surveyor over allegations relating to land grabbing, encroachment, unlawful takeover and illegal sale of property. While these matters remain subject to judicial determination, they illustrate the principle the policy seeks to establish: status or influence is not intended to determine who is subject to the law.

The broader significance is economic as much as legal. For a farmer, secure land means more than simply having somewhere to cultivate; it provides the confidence to invest labour, money and time in productive activity without the constant fear of unlawful displacement. For a family, it means greater assurance that a lawfully acquired or inherited property can be built on, occupied or transferred without intimidation. For a small business owner, it means the security to establish premises and plan for the future. For a developer, it reduces the risk that substantial investment will become trapped in competing claims, while for an investor, it signals that the State has an institutional mechanism for responding when lawful property rights are threatened. Land insecurity can therefore affect far more than the immediate parties to a dispute: it can delay projects, discourage investment, disrupt livelihoods and create conflicts that spread into communities. In that sense, protecting property rights is also about protecting economic opportunity, family security and the confidence to plan for the future.

The policy also sits within the broader development agenda of the administration. Roads, agriculture, healthcare, housing, business support and other development programmes all depend, directly or indirectly, on an environment in which people can own, use, develop and invest in property with confidence. Agriculture requires secure access to land; housing and urban development require predictable property rights; businesses need premises that can be occupied without unlawful interference; infrastructure projects require orderly land acquisition and documentation; and private investment is more sustainable where ownership and use can be defended through recognised institutions. The protection of land is therefore not an isolated legal concern. It is part of the foundation upon which economic activity, investment, infrastructure and urban development are built. A State can construct roads, attract businesses and promote agriculture, but the benefits of those efforts are weakened when uncertainty over land ownership remains a persistent obstacle to productive activity.

This is also where Governor Aiyedatiwa’s wider justice-sector reforms become relevant. They are not a separate story from the land policy, but part of the institutional environment in which the policy must operate. The administration has expanded judicial and legal capacity, including increasing the number of High Court judges from 24 to 35 and employing 44 additional law officers, while also pursuing measures covering faster legal advice, wider community access to justice, Justices of the Peace, stronger legal institutions, digitalisation of the Ministry of Justice Law Library, modern justice-sector infrastructure and judicial autonomy. The combined effect is to strengthen the legal ecosystem within which property rights can be interpreted, disputes adjudicated and offences prosecuted.

The policy is consequently beginning to change more than the response to individual land disputes; it is changing the conversation around land administration itself. The message is becoming clearer: ownership disputes should not be settled through intimidation or self-help; legitimate claims should be pursued through lawful channels; documents and technical evidence should carry weight; mediation should be given a chance; and where the law has been violated, the State has both the responsibility and the capacity to intervene. If that principle becomes embedded in everyday conduct, its significance may ultimately extend beyond any individual prosecution.

For Governor Lucky Orimisan Aiyedatiwa, the policy is, within its relatively short period of implementation, emerging as a potentially enduring institutional legacy of his administration. Not simply because his government enacted a law against land grabbing, but because it has begun building a system in which lawful property ownership can be protected through institutions rather than through influence, force or self-help. Its lasting significance may therefore lie not only in the cases it prosecutes, but in the culture of lawful property ownership, due process and institutional protection that it is beginning to establish.

It is not merely about stopping land grabbing. It is about changing the culture around land administration, strengthening the institutions that protect property and restoring confidence that disputes over one of the most valuable assets in society can be resolved through law rather than force. If that culture takes root, then the significance of the policy will extend well beyond the statute itself: it will be measured by the farmer who can cultivate without fear, the family that can build with confidence, the business owner who can establish and expand, the developer who can invest, the investor who can plan with greater certainty, and the citizen who knows that a legitimate property right has a lawful institution standing behind it