The House of Representatives has advanced a proposed law to regulate tenancy arrangements in the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), with lawmakers divided over how far the government should interfere in rental transactions between landlords and tenants.
Join the Premium Times WhatsApp Community For Quick Access To News and Happenings Around You.
The Federal Capital Territory Advance Rent Regulation and Tenants’ Protection Bill, 2026 (HB.2839), jointly sponsored by Paul Nnamchi (APC, Enugu) and Ahmed Doro (PDP, Katsina), passed second reading during Wednesday’s plenary.
The proposal seeks to address exploitative rental practices, particularly compulsory demands for multiple years’ rent in advance, excessive charges and unlawful eviction of tenants.
The bill had passed first reading on Thursday, 22 October, when it was formally introduced in the House.
Leading the debate, Mr Nnamchi said the increasing cost of accommodation and the requirement for tenants to pay large sums upfront had placed considerable financial pressure on residents, affecting household savings, businesses and employment opportunities.
He said the proposed legislation would establish a more transparent and accountable rental system through restrictions on advance rent, regulation of letting practices and the creation of a framework for protecting the interests of both landlords and tenants.
Mr Nnamchi maintained that the legislation was not designed to undermine property ownership or discourage investment in the real estate sector.
Stay Ahead with Premium Times
Rather, he said it sought to ensure that the commercial interests of landlords and estate agents did not come at the expense of tenants who were vulnerable to exploitative practices.
He said: “Mr Speaker, this legislation is not intended to undermine property rights or discourage investment. Rather, it recognises that legitimate commercial interests must coexist with public protection. Landlords deserve reasonable returns.
“Agents deserve professional recognition. And tenants deserve fairness and protection from exploitation.”
The lawmaker added that a regulated rental market would promote transparency, certainty and accountability while improving confidence in the housing sector.
He urged lawmakers to support the bill so it could proceed to committee consideration, where its provisions would receive further scrutiny, and stakeholders would have an opportunity to make contributions.
Lawmakers divided over proposed restrictions
Although several lawmakers supported the proposal, the debate exposed differences over whether the government should prohibit certain rental practices or simply regulate them.
Idris Zacharias (PDP, Kogi) described the bill as important but urged the House to consider wider land and housing issues in the FCT.
He also called for the House Committee on FCT and Area Councils to participate in the committee that would consider the proposal.
Chinedu Ogah (APC, Ebonyi) supported the bill, citing the financial difficulties businesses encounter when trying to secure office accommodation in Abuja.
He said, “Renting a three-bedroom office in Wuse could cost between ₦25 million and ₦30 million annually, excluding agency charges.”
Mr Ogah argued that clearer regulations would help address excessive charges and create a more predictable environment for investors.
Leko Gambo (APC, Bauchi) also supported the proposal but questioned the use of the word “prohibit” in its title.
He suggested replacing it with “regulate,” arguing that the legislation should focus on controlling rental practices rather than imposing an outright prohibition.
Mr Gambo also proposed extending the bill’s application beyond the FCT to other parts of the country. However, Deputy Speaker Benjamin Kalu, who presided over the plenary, clarified that the proposal, as presented, was specifically designed for the territory.
Ibe Osonwa (LP, Abia) expressed reservations about restricting multiple-year rent payments.
He argued that landlords should retain some flexibility in determining the terms of their transactions, describing the rental market as a free-market arrangement.
“This is a free market situation. By the free market economy, are we now going to, for every good or service that is sold outside, start to tell people how to trade in their own businesses?” he asked.
Mr Osonwa said landlords and tenants could mutually agree to multi-year payments in certain circumstances, urging lawmakers to avoid a blanket restriction that could interfere with legitimate commercial arrangements.
Joseph Bagudu (APC, Kaduna) also advocated regulation rather than prohibition, arguing that landlords needed to recover their investments, particularly amid increasing building material costs.
He further disputed claims that agency fees could reach 25 per cent of rent, saying the charges were generally around 10 per cent.
Ayodeji Alao-Akala (APC, Oyo) supported the bill, saying it would address compulsory demands for multiple years’ rent rather than prevent landlords from increasing rental charges.
He said requiring young couples and other prospective tenants to pay two years’ rent upfront placed an unreasonable financial burden on them.
The lawmaker argued that the proposed legislation could accommodate different payment arrangements, including monthly, six-monthly and annual payments, without allowing landlords to compel tenants to pay several years’ rent at once.
Patrick Umoh (APC, Akwa Ibom), however, raised concerns about possible constitutional implications, particularly regarding property rights and freedom of trade.
He urged lawmakers to step down the bill for further consultation and a review of existing tenancy laws in the FCT.
Wale Raji (APC, Lagos) said previous attempts to address rental difficulties had not sufficiently tackled the underlying problems.
He argued that the imbalance between housing demand and supply remained a major driver of increasing rents and called for greater investment in social housing and increased housing supply.
Sunday Umeh (APC, Enugu) disagreed with suggestions that the proposal violated the Constitution, urging the House to allow it to proceed to the next legislative stage, where lawmakers could scrutinise and amend its provisions.
He argued that the National Assembly’s responsibility was to make laws that promote the welfare and good governance of Nigerians.
“The bill is not anti-investment. The bill is not against landlords or those investing in the real estate environment or industry. This bill is of good use to both the landlords and the tenants,” he said.
Mr Umeh added that the legislative process provided further opportunities to address concerns and make necessary corrections before the bill received final passage.
The Minority Leader, Frederick Agbedi (PDP, Bayelsa), also urged members to support the proposal, saying high rental costs were forcing some Abuja residents into overcrowded and unsuitable accommodation in the suburbs.
He said the bill sought to address excesses in the rental market without discouraging investment in property development.
House Leader Julius Ihonvbere (PDP, Edo) also backed the proposal, citing the difficulties residents encounter when searching for accommodation and the activities of unregistered estate agents.
He said the proposed legislation would proceed to a public hearing, where Nigerians, housing professionals and other interested groups could contribute to its consideration.
“We are in a stage where we have a duty to protect Nigerians. It’s not against you to build your house. You can build as many houses as you want,” he said.
Deputy Speaker defends regulation of housing sector
In his closing remarks, Mr Kalu cited Section 16 of the 1999 Constitution, which outlines the economic objectives of the Nigerian state, including promoting citizens’ welfare and providing suitable and adequate shelter.
He argued that Nigeria operated a mixed economy in which government regulation remained necessary in certain sectors, particularly those connected to essential human needs.
“Not all sectors of the economy should be free and capitalist, especially when it has to do with shelter, which is fundamental. So, some sectors should be regulated as well as controlled,” he said.
READ ALSO: Reps propose 20% investment cap to protect trust fund beneficiaries
The deputy speaker’s position reflected supporters’ argument that housing should not be treated solely as a commercial transaction without safeguards for people seeking accommodation.
The House subsequently passed the bill for second reading.
What the proposed law seeks to achieve
PREMIUM TIMES reported that the 17-page bill proposes a comprehensive regulatory framework covering advance rent payments, tenancy agreements, estate agents, complaints, refunds, eviction practices and dispute resolution.
Under Section 4, landlords, estate agents, and property managers would be prohibited from demanding, receiving, or compelling tenants to pay more than 12 months’ rent in advance as a condition for granting, renewing, or continuing a tenancy.
The restriction would apply to residential and commercial properties across the FCT.
However, the proposal does not completely prohibit tenants from paying more than one year’s rent. It allows voluntary payments exceeding 12 months when the tenant initiates the arrangement without coercion, discrimination, threats, or retaliation, provided the agreement is documented in writing.