significantly in practice. No doubt, these inherent contradictions between the Land
Use Act and the customary land governance system have not addressed the yearnings of the Nigerian people for a participatory and robust soil governance and tenure
system obtainable in their customs and traditions that simply means landlord and
tenant.
The above argument is the reason why some scholars are compelled to insinuate
that the Land Use Act was brought about as a result of ethnic and power interest in
Nigeria and not to promote soil governance in every ramification. Accordingly,
Agbosu observes that:
The Act is a product of the inherent contradictions of the colonial and neo-colonial
dependent, pseudo-capitalist economic structures established in Nigeria since colonial
times. By the 1970s, these contradictions became so serious that they threatened to become
a clog on the growth of the capitalist economy. If such contradictions had been allowed to
reach a nodal point, conditions for the self-negation of the existing socio-economic and legal
order would have ensued. Furthermore, the legislature, it would seem, narrowly identified
the problem with private ownership of lands from its own class perspective, that is, without a
scientific conception of the problems in terms of ownership in the theory of social relations.
A scientific conception would have revealed the essence of the difficulties as relating not
merely to the procedural aspects of private ownership of the lands, such as certainty of title,
registration of title, etc. but concerning the institution of private ownership as an economic
and legal category around which the exploitation of man by man is organized in classdivided societies. Such a scientific perception of the problems would have demanded a
lasting solution that not only abolished private ownership rights in land but also abolished
private ownership of other means of production.
The socialisation of all means of production would have amounted to a holistic approach to
the solution of the problems in the interest of the nation as a whole.
61
The above instructive quote suggests that there have been consistent and deliberate attempts from the colonial era to manipulate ownership and access to natural
resources especially through soil or land governance in Nigeria. The elite merely
took advantage of already established contradictions after independence.
5 Soil Protection Provisions in Nigeria
Soil protection can be viewed from a biodiversity approach.
62 Accordingly, the
drafting of law and policy on soil can be anchored on an ecosystem approach.
This implies that sufficient legal mechanisms in favour of biological diversity
perspective are used in framing soil protection instruments. This approach incorporates in itself the environment and the landscape. For sustainable use of soils
conditions to be developed, “governance programs must be integrated from the
local to global level, across a range of sectors, and over a substantial time frame to
61 Agbosu (1988).
62 Boer and Hannam (2015).
172
B. B. Orubebe
Use Act and the customary land governance system have not addressed the yearnings of the Nigerian people for a participatory and robust soil governance and tenure
system obtainable in their customs and traditions that simply means landlord and
tenant.
The above argument is the reason why some scholars are compelled to insinuate
that the Land Use Act was brought about as a result of ethnic and power interest in
Nigeria and not to promote soil governance in every ramification. Accordingly,
Agbosu observes that:
The Act is a product of the inherent contradictions of the colonial and neo-colonial
dependent, pseudo-capitalist economic structures established in Nigeria since colonial
times. By the 1970s, these contradictions became so serious that they threatened to become
a clog on the growth of the capitalist economy. If such contradictions had been allowed to
reach a nodal point, conditions for the self-negation of the existing socio-economic and legal
order would have ensued. Furthermore, the legislature, it would seem, narrowly identified
the problem with private ownership of lands from its own class perspective, that is, without a
scientific conception of the problems in terms of ownership in the theory of social relations.
A scientific conception would have revealed the essence of the difficulties as relating not
merely to the procedural aspects of private ownership of the lands, such as certainty of title,
registration of title, etc. but concerning the institution of private ownership as an economic
and legal category around which the exploitation of man by man is organized in classdivided societies. Such a scientific perception of the problems would have demanded a
lasting solution that not only abolished private ownership rights in land but also abolished
private ownership of other means of production.
The socialisation of all means of production would have amounted to a holistic approach to
the solution of the problems in the interest of the nation as a whole.
61
The above instructive quote suggests that there have been consistent and deliberate attempts from the colonial era to manipulate ownership and access to natural
resources especially through soil or land governance in Nigeria. The elite merely
took advantage of already established contradictions after independence.
5 Soil Protection Provisions in Nigeria
Soil protection can be viewed from a biodiversity approach.
62 Accordingly, the
drafting of law and policy on soil can be anchored on an ecosystem approach.
This implies that sufficient legal mechanisms in favour of biological diversity
perspective are used in framing soil protection instruments. This approach incorporates in itself the environment and the landscape. For sustainable use of soils
conditions to be developed, “governance programs must be integrated from the
local to global level, across a range of sectors, and over a substantial time frame to
61 Agbosu (1988).
62 Boer and Hannam (2015).
172
B. B. Orubebe