LITERATURE REVIEW
The essence of a literature review is to simplify the work of the researcher, by making her aware of the existing work and reveal the experiences and opinions of others in the area of investigation. In an attempt to get at the root of “An Analysis of the Federal Government Housing Policy Implementation in Imo State, Nigeria:1979-2007), the literature is thematically organized under the following sub-themes:
Housing, Policy and Its Formulation in Nigeria.
Link between Formulation and Implementation.
Housing Policies in Nigeria – Pre and Post-Independence.
The nature of President Shehu Shagari’s Housing Policy and the New National Housing Policy.
HOUSING, POLICY AND ITS FORMULATION IN NIGERIA
HOUSING
Globally, shelter is accepted as an essential basic human need. It is regarded as a social responsibility by all nations of the world. The World Health Organisation describes housing as “an enclosed environment in which man finds protection against the elements”. This definition, according to Nwosu, (1981:13) “is partial and narrow and may have sufficiently served the pre-historic man whose main objective was to achieve bare existence within the circumstances dictated by his natural environment”. Instead, as Nigeria’s Third National Development Plan 1975-80 aptly puts it, “housing does not only represent one of the most basic human needs in terms of protection against natural elements, it also no doubt has “a profound impact on the health, welfare and productivity of the individual” (FRN 1975:3097).
According to Abrams, (1964:x), “housing is not only shelter but part of the fabric of neighbourhood life and of the whole social milieu, it touches on many facets of industrialization, economic activity and development”. Housing, Iyortyer, (1984:4) opines “is a strong indispensable casual element in all manner of progress initiated and sustained by both the individual and his society. Housing is the second most important requirement to man. It transcends simple shelter”. According to Willey, (2001:30), “housing includes utilities and community services like electricity, water supply, good access roads, sewage and requires disposal facilities and access to employment”. Housing is important to the development of the society in both economic, social and welfare terms. Njoku, (1998:39) opines:
the quality and quantity of housing stock is a reliable barometer of the standard of living, the level of technology, culture and civilization of any nation. To the English man, his house is his castle, which protects him from all comers; to a Nigerian, status in society is difficult to establish if one has no house. In many Nigerian cultural settings, a chieftaincy title cannot be bestowed on an individual who does not own a house within the locality. In modern society, housing constitutes between twelve and twenty per cent of household expenditures and is usually the major goal of family saving efforts.
In the realm of private and public investment, Ajanlekoo, (2002:7) writes, “the built environment (which includes shelter) represents man’s most tangible material asset representing up to 20 to 30 per cent of fixed capital formation in areas with vigorous housing programmes and it is increasingly recognized as a profitable investment item, yielding a flow of income”. Housing is “a very expensive capital investment, which forms substantial proportion of every nation’s Gross Fixed Capital Formation (GFCF). No nation in the world can boast of having economic capability of providing housing to all her citizens without other amenities suffering” (FMI, 1979:12).
For Gana, (2002:6), “a home may indeed be regarded as the greatest antidote for man against the vagaries of modern living. It is the last bastion of peace and relaxation of mind and body, and therefore the sine qua non for sanity in a world of toil, sweat, tribulations and even happiness”. (Nwosu,1981:24) states that “it represents the most sanguine and restful primary nest for the nurturing of new generations of the human species. A good homestead is thus the precious life-blood of civilization itself”,
Housing at different epoch, remains “strategic asset to man, irrespective of his social-economic status, colour or creed. The passion and emotional attachment to housing in African cultural setting was underscored by the fact, that one is not considered a man until he owns a house” (Okupe, 2002:14). As opined by Ajanlekoko, (2002:13) “at the center piece of all human endeavours is the ambition to bequeath a lasting legacy to his family or off-springs. Majority of this dream is seen in the context of home ownership. Housing is generally believed to be the ultimate reward or outcome of a successful life accomplishment”. “A man who has not built or acquired a house is regarded as a non-achiever in the society. So, globally, over the millennium, man has always pursued with the fulfillment of this singular goal with determination” (Okupe, 2002:19).
Mohammed, Haninaya, Olu and Achebe, (1980:4) observe that:
Housing has become an important part of the National Development Plan. Government now accepts it as part of its social responsibility to participate actively in the provision of housing for all groups and will intervene on a large scale in this sector during this plan period. Ever since, the government actions have been geared towards housing Nigerians whether in the urban or in the rural areas.
The question is, to what extent has adequate and affordable houses been provided for the citizenry? “It however appears that housing has become a thorny issue in the mind of government and it was not until the democratic government, that a comprehensive government plan was designed to find a lasting solution to this mindoccupying issue” (Agbola, 1998:14).
Affordable housing, according to Oyediran, (1980:165) “has seemingly become impossible for an average Nigerian. While the real income of the people continues to drop, the cost of developing housing and purchase of same continue to be on the rise”. The problem of housing is enormous and complex, exhibiting apparent and marked regional differences.
In most of our urban centers,
the problem is not only restricted to quality, but also to quantity of available housing units and the environment. The scene is only slightly different in the rural areas where the problem is primarily that of quality of housing and inadequacy of infrastructure facilities like roads, drainage, water, power supply etc. Government is now concerned with the provision of houses for all citizens whether employed or not, whether in urban or rural setting ( Lindblom, 1980:24).
POLICY
Much has been written in the area of housing policy initiative, formulation and implementation but not much has been written about housing formulation and implementation during civilian regimes in Nigeria. Sweet and Maxwell, (1984:10) opines, “the number of books, articles and anthologies on housing policy formulation suggests a growing awareness among public administration experts that the whole discipline of public administration is based on adequate mastery of the concept of policy”.
In their massive study of policy in the San Francisco Bay Region, Eulav and Premit arrived at the same opinion. According to them,
policy is strictly theoretical construct inferred from the pattern of relevant choice behaviour. Policy is distinguished from policy goal, policy intensions and policy choices. It is a studying decision characterized by behavioural consistency and repetitiveness on the part of both those who make it and those who abide by it. The operative words in the above definition are behavioural consistency and repetitiveness associated with government efforts to resolve public problems (Eulav and Premit,1977:21).
Policy is regarded as the “guidelines laid down in general or specific terms, to enable a company or other organizations reach the long-range targets set by the objectives. It is a rule of action for the rank and file to show them how they are expected to attain the desired results” (Coventry, 1982:93). In his own definition of policy, Nwachukwu, (1997:70) opines, “it is official guidelines or a set of guidelines for the intentions, goals and actions of an organization in accomplishing specific objectives”. Policy is also “a definite course of method of action selected from among alternatives, and in the light of given conditions to guide and determine present and future decisions” (Njoku, 1999:33).
One may ask why policy is critical for the achievement of a desired result.
According to Opara, (2002:14), a policy is “a plan of action, statement, objectives and ideals made by a government in pursuance of certain goals and tackling of perceived problems”. A problem, “is a condition or situation that produces a human need, deprivation or dissatisfaction, self-identified or identified by others for which relief is sought” (Smith, 1964:44). The laying down of policy clearly helps to achieve uniformity of action throughout a nation and consistency as from one time to another.
Purpose-built definitions of policy include that of Broom, (1969:7) which states that “policy is a broad, precedent-setting decision that becomes standard management practice and subsequent management decision-making. Thus, plans will be coherent and effective action more likely”. Titmuss, (1977:23) states that “policy refers to the principles that govern action directed towards given ends”. The concept denotes action about means as well as end, and it therefore implies change: changing situations, systems, practices and behaviour.
Policies can be put in writing as “manuals or procedures, office instructions and memoranda. These written, normally in statement form, or sometimes unwritten rules guide every staff in what is expected of them in any normal set of circumstances or in exceptional circumstances or emergencies” (Kempner, 1980:62).
Besides the Boards of directors of companies, a major policy also “emanates from the Legislature, Judiciary, Executive arms of government, Union pressures or action of competitors” (Omoile, 1994). Finally, “policy statements must be made to cover three aspects of an organization - its objectives, the means of achieving them and the constraints” (Drucker, 1977:268).
ORIGIN OF POLICY FORMULATION IN NIGERIA
As stated by Anweh, (1991:9), “policy formulation started in Nigeria long before it achieved independence. It was characterized by the domination of the colonial administrative officer who monopolized policy making, policy execution and policy adjudication during colonial era”. In support of this assertion, Balogun, (1976:375) observes that:
the colonial administrator combined three roles in one person and served in three major capacities – legislative (policy formulation), executive (policy implementation) and judicial (policy adjudication). The political officers, were all in all whether as part of the central secretariat or as representatives of the colonial government in the provinces. They laid down rules, outlawing slavery, cannibalism and other barbaric acts, implemented the rules and dispensed justice based on the same rules.
In most cases, these administrators had no secretariat. For example, “up to 1921, Lord Lugard ruled Nigeria without a secretariat, without any coordinating machinery, without a central office where the decisions of government with their parliamentary papers might be recorded” (Anweh, 199144). When Hugh Clifford succeeded Lugard, attempts were made to establish institutions of government including Legislative Council. Later, he assigned executive functions to lieutenants governors. According to Sweet and Maxwell, (1965:82),
the actual policy making machinery was established in
1946 by Authur Richard’s Constitution which created a Legislative Council consisting of an unofficial majority
to meet successfully in Lagos, Kaduna and Enugu; three Regional Houses with selected members who through electoral colleges, in turn selected represen- tatives to the central Legislative Council; and Regional Houses with advisory roles on matters referred to them by the Regional Governors.
Continuing, Sweet and Maxwell opine “he wanted to create a system within which the diverse elements might progress at varying speed amicably and smoothly towards a more closely integrated economy, social and political unity without sacrificing the principles of ideals inherent to their divergent ways of life”. In the study of policy making in Nigeria, examining the nature of policy making between 1960 and 1975, it was discovered that “much emphasis was laid on the role of the civil servants in policy formulation during military regimes; that the Administrators could not avoid some policy-making responsibility since much of the policy making responsibility on the part of the Administrator took place in the course of the application of administrative processes” (Oyediran, 1980:18).
THE NEW NATIONAL HOUSING POLICY
The efforts and failures of the past regimes in formulating and implementing a functional housing policy, having been evaluated,
the military administration in May, 1985 set up a 10-man committee which was mandated to examine the issues associated with housing and draw up a ‘blue print’ for improving performance of housing delivery in the country. To get a proper appraisal of this issue, aNational debate was launched and the response was tremendous. All over the country workshops and seminars were organized and all spectra of society expressed their views on the recommendations of the Special Committee on the new Housing Policy. (Njoku, 1999:13).
Following this and a series of other developments, the Armed Forces Ruling Council “deliberated on the new Housing Policy, and approved the document on the 10th of April,1990 which was officially launched by the presidency in February 1991. Its goal which was a reflection of the United Nations Resolution was to ensure that all Nigerians own or have access to decent housing accommodation at affordable cost by the year 2000” (Ajanlekoko, 2001). The Federal Government unfolded a new agenda and established a new National Housing Programme (NHP) in March, 1994 with
the aim of providing adequate and affordable shelter for the needs of Nigerians within the Low, Medium and High income groups. About 121,000 housing stocks were to be delivered under the programme. As usual, the outcome was a dismal failure. Only a total of 292 housing units valued at N2, 328 billion have been completed (Mustapha, 2002).
However, the actual provision of housing units has always been far below the housing targets in each National Development Plan or Annual Budgets and Nigeria’s journey towards housing provision has been substantially characterized by motion without movement. In fact, “access to decent shelter has worsened for increasing segments of the urban population in Nigeria. For instance it was reported that out of the 121,000 housing units slated to be built between 1994 and 1995, only 1,014 houses were completed” (CBN, 1994 and 1998). It was also estimated that:
85% of urban population live in single rooms and the number of occupants per room range from 8 to 12 with adverse effects on sanitation and health. And yet, it has been projected that the total annual housing needs for the next 15-20 years considering the prevailing occupancy ratio of about 3-4 persons, per room is between 5000,000 and 600,000 units. If we were to have met the target of 8 million units by the year 2000 AD, the slogan ‘housing for all’ by the year 2000 would not have been a dream consigned to the trash bin! (Agbola, 199:23).
The new National Housing Policy is a document which, “among other things analysed the magnitude of the housing problems both in the urban and rural areas and also focused on past policies and programme – its failures, achievements and financial allocation. It also sets out the goals and objectives of the new policy as well as strategies for achieving them” (FMEWH, 2005:34). It reviewed the role of the Federal Mortgage Bank of Nigeria, the constraints militating against the effective performance of the Bank and suggests the creation of a new housing finance system. Under this new arrangement,
a two-tier structure has been created. The Federal Mortgage Bank of Nigeria will now operate as an annex institution, concentrating on wholesale mortgage institution, forming the second-tier, shall perform retail mortgage lending at the grassroots. Strategic mobilization of funds for housing finance through the establishment of a mandatory home savings scheme within the framework of a National Housing Fund, voluntary schemes and government budgetary allocations and financial transfers are expatiated under this chapter as well (FHA, 2002:10)
Its focus also was, according to Eniola, (2002:6)
on a wide range of topics from trends in building materials and construction costs, building research and manpower development and training, to private sector participation in housing delivery. It
acknowledges the role of monitoring and evaluation in policy implementation and establishes the relevant institutions that effect
- the Legislations, which require amendments to make the implementation of the policy functional.
According to Ajanlekoko, (2002:13), the “National Rolling Plans (NRPs) 19902000) explicitly recognized the importance of providing adequate housing in the country as a tool for stimulating the national economy”. According to NBS, (2005:9), “in this millennium, many other efforts have been made to alleviate housing problems in Nigeria but none has actually materialized”. In summarizing Government efforts towards solving housing problems in Nigeria, Bichi, (2007:16) writes:
Government direct interventions in housing provision included the setting up of the Nigerian Building society (NBS) in 1956; the creation of National Site and Services Scheme (NSSS) in 1986, to provide land with essential infrastructure facilities such as roads, drainage and sewerage system, water supply, and electricity for housing development in a well environment. The scheme is planned to provide 2000 well laid out and serviced plot, in each of the State capitals of the federation, including the Federal Capital, Territory, Abuja.
Continuing on the efforts towards solving housing problems in Nigeria Bichi opines:
Government established the National Prototype Housing Programme (NPHP) by the Federal Ministry of Works and Housing to complement the objectives of the NSS). The Project was embarked upon to demonstrate the feasibility of constructing functional, cost effective and affordable housing units, through imaginative designs, judicious specification of materials and efficient management of construction; the setting up of the State Housing Corporations (SHC) to provide housing to the populace at affordable prices; the creation of the Federal Mortgage Bank of Nigeria (FMBN) in 1977, to finance housing loans to prospective housing developers at minimal interest rate; the setting up of the National Housing Programme (NHP) in 1991 and the National Housing Fund (NHF) scheme by Decree No. 3 of 1992, to provide soft loans to prospective housing developers and also monitor developments in the housing sector;
NBS, (2005:10) stated that the efforts towards solving housing problems in Nigeria, among others, included:
the decomposition of the FMBN through the establishment of the Federal Mortgage Finance Limited to take over retail mortgage portfolio previously handled by the bank, and also facilitate effective management of the NHF scheme; the setting up of a Housing Policy Council (HPC) to monitor developments in the housing sector and also to sep up the machinery for the review of the 1978 Land Use Decree (LUD), in order to make land available for large scale land developers; the National Housing Policy (NHP) in 1981, Infrastructural Development Fund (IDF) in 1985, and Urban Development
Bank (UDB) in 1992 (NPC, 1998 and Vision 2010 Main Report).
A global searchlight beamed on housing during second United Nation Conference on Human Settlements, otherwise called Habitat 11, which took place in Istanbul, Turkey from 3rd to 14th June, 1996:
reaffirmed that access to adequate standard of living is part of the inalienable rights of man. Therefore, state parties were encouraged to ensure its progressive realization. Right to adequate housing as universal human right includes not only a roof over one’s head but implies access to all the system considered essential to a healthy life, particularly urban life including access to safe water and other infrastructural necessities of life (UN, 1997:145).
Despite these lofty initiatives and efforts by the governments, actual achievements in terms of providing adequate housing in the country remain essentially minimal. For instance, “all the good intentions, evinced by the government through the National Housing Policy, and in spite of huge resources committed to housing and housing related matters by the government over the years, Nigeria’s housing problems still remain intractable” (Abumere, 2006). Onibokun, (2007:5) states “the housing problems remain unresolved”. In this same view, according to Soladoye in Hananiya (1990:13), “it would be self-deceit if any government hoped that it could provide houses for all its citizens”.
As stated in the Federal Republic of Nigeria National Housing Policy, (2006:11)
from May 29, 1999 to date, the Federal Government comtemplated a new National Housing Programme under which it would build twenty thousand (20,000) housing units throughout the federation over a four year period at the rate of five thousand (5,000) per annum, as a demonstration of its commitment to the eradication of homelessness among Nigerians. However, the implementation of the programme as envisaged is yet to commence.
One can therefore see that Nigeria has not witnessed any successful housing delivery programme since Independence in 1960. The announcement of fantastic housing units to be built by various governments could not solve the existing housing problem, until the promises are practically fulfilled at least fifty per cent. What then were the factors that militated against the achievement of successful implementation of housing policies in Nigeria?
FACTORS THAT MILITATED AGAINST THE IMPLEMENTATION OF HOUSING POLICY
The problem of housing construction has been with us from the earliest times. “Nwosu, 1985:13) opines: “while the efforts of government towards improving the housing situation of the populace are commendable, however, certain loopholes led to the emergence of sinister phenomena which militated against their effective implementation.” Chigbundu, (1971:72) states that “every administration in this country has been faced with the problem but the size of the problem clearly demonstrates that perhaps the right remedies have not been discovered or if discovered have not been applied.” The following are however some of the obvious problems that militated against the effective implementation of Nigeria’s housing policies:
LACK OF POLICY OBJECTIVES
“There was absence of a comprehensive national policy framework for the operation and maintenance of Second Republic housing policy for the development of infrastructures” (Bichi, 2001:12). Some of the steps that should be taken according to Rogers, (2004: 11) include:
Identification of major causes of poor operation and maintenance of rural development infrastructures.
Enacting laws on the institution and practices required for effective operations and maintenance.
Identification and classifications of various stakeholders for different aspects of rural development maintenance.
Enhanced national capacity development in the operation and maintenance of rural infrastructures especially water, electricity, roads, health and educational facilities.
In his own contribution, Adeniran, (1978:7) observes that “policy objectives are imperative if rural dwellers are to benefit from the investments made in the rural development housing units dotted in the various local government areas of the country”.
LACK OF PLANNING
As observed in SEEDS, (2004:89), “planning, the first and perhaps most important function of management was not the priority of successive administrations including the Second Republic. It is particularly very important in a developing country where resources are relatively scarce”. “A work plan is a written document detailing specific work action aimed at specific objectives within the framework of an identified environment. The greatest value of a work plan is that it provides you with a working document aimed squarely at specific results and determining how they are to be achieved” (Ekeanyanwu, 20085).
Balogun, (2003:1) states that “many projects and programmes have failed in this country because adequate plans were not made to identify all the important variables likely to bear on the projects that would determine their failure or success.” Ukwu, (1980:17) observes that:
the policy as of now was simply to deliver housing units irrespective of the quality and habitability of such units.
They did not meet the culturally determined needs or values of Nigerians in whatever part of the country they were sited and its unlikely that they would be patronized or fully utilized by many Nigerians. A shift of housing projects to the rural areas since this would decelerate growing urbanization, its many attendant ills and its prejudice in favour of the urban elite. It might be more appropriate to delegate responsibility for housing to local governments and to make funds available to them.
Discussing social welfare and environment, among which is Housing Policy, “the social quality of the rural environment – the human setting, organization and interaction patterns of household and settlement units with the deprived quality of its material culture, Sada pointed out that a good number of programmes planned by the government was not executed eventually” (Sada 1980:17). During this period, the housing policy and programmes introduced by the Federal Government became “an abysmal failure as reflected by failure of architectural designs to take cognizance of the various cultural and climatic factors; and politicization of project location and the appointment of contractors, which gave little or no consideration to competence and experience” (Ebie,2001:12).
When the Housing Programme was being conceptualized, according to Bamai, (1988:3), “it was evident that the prices of low-income house types could not cover construction costs. The intention, however, of the initiators of the programme was to keep prices of the low-income category houses low and affordable to enable the greatest number benefit from the programme”. Consequently, as stated by Ebie, (2001:26), “the disposal prices were, in some cases, fixed below cost of construction of house, let alone infrastructure, in other cases prices provided a slim margin over contract costs. In no case were prices of low-income houses expected to cover all development costs”. For Bwari (1984:20),
there is still a serious snag and that is the lack of an articulated policy guideline that will clearly define who provides what and
would take into consideration the critical factors in modern housing provision which include the number of housing units in the urban/rural communities, which determines the room occupancy ration. The cost effectiveness of housing provision vis-à-vis affordability or the capacity of the end-users to rent or buy. The provision of enabling environment viz, mortgage facilities, private sector involvement and other funding agencies on housing previsions. The architectural quality and aesthetic quality in harmony with the natural environment.
The effect of the military rule was also a militating factor to the achievement of a successful implementation of Second Republic housing programme. According to SEEDS (2004:98), “the long period of military in governance weakened budgetary processes and institutions, and there was a backlog in the production of audited Annual Accounts and Financial Statements of the State. The same situation was also prevalent at the Local Governments.
POOR LEADERSHIP AND INCOMPETENT WORKERS
According to Ikegwuoha, (1994:151),
the administration started with abuses of democratic and presidential principles. The National Assembly and various States’ House of Assembly witnessed open duels, minority parties’ members walking away from the Houses, violation of human rights; some State Governors shared public offices between few families, thus casting doubts to the public on the integrity and seriousness of government.
The events in Nigeria’s politics show that the practice of democracy and government by the civilians and soldiers have been the practice of grafts. “Since there was manifest indiscipline in the leadership itself, the Buhari-Idiagbon regime enunciated an ethical revolution – War Against Indiscipline (WAI), the banner being, leadership by example. A belief that from the fountain of a disciplined leadership would issue clean waters of an equal disciplined fellowship” (Ikegwuoha, 199424).
In his own contribution, Nigro & Nigro (1973:46), observes that
there was also concentration of leadership and policy making at the top and this killed initiative and sense of belonging that would have produced new ideas for the housing delivery and growth. It is a known fact that this problem is often created by political patronage as well as socio-cultural value orientation of favouring friends, relatives and kinship affiliations.
Evo, (2008:4) quoting Hal Halladay states that “as a leader going into the battle of business, you will go as far as your team. No matter your expertise, your dedication and tenacity, without a supporting team, you will not succeed. And without leaders in that supporting team, you will fail”. According to Yusuf, in Emezue, (2008:8),
Previous studies are full of proof that inadequacies in both in the stock and quality of leaders in this country have badly hindered social progress, at the national as well as individual level. Two factors which had retarded (and which continue to retard) successful implementation of housing programme/ projects in Nigeria were inadequate leadership acumen and poor quality subordinate employees”.
In the same vein, Schatz, (1965:55) opines “It was not the lack of capital or other economic factors that constitute the greatest constraints in the development of the second republic housing programme but lack of leadership talents”.
As stated in SEEDS, (2004:89)“the informal and ad hoc approach to public administration also permeated staff recruitment and promotion processes and procedures. Merit was displaced as the most important criterion for hiring as entry into the service came to depend more on “whom you know’ than “what you can do”. In the same vein, (Ugwu and Doran, 1994: 24) opine “the major consequence of this was the displacement of efficiency and effectiveness and the enthronement of incompetence and indiscipline”.
“One of the cardinal principles needed to deliver the housing sector is that leaders must be exemplary. A knowledge-based leadership provides a foundation for the social transformation and optimal utility of available resources to achieve set objectives” (Adams, 1996:22).
As stated by Ikegwuoha, (1994:153), “a combination of executive and political “class” in collaboration with foreign agents dipped hands into the robust resources of the nation; they selfishly and consciously appropriated them through highly inflated contracts. Sharing this view that contractors were part of the problems to achieving the objectives of housing policy in Nigeria, Mohammed, (1980:168) opines,
the projects in the State ran into a problem which plagued most government projects. Contractors over-value the works. Some contractors ran away after collecting the mobilization fees. Many of the contractors employed for the job were inexperienced and incompetent resulting in many of the houses being abandoned half way through.
According to Madu, (2008:5) states that “the structures numbering about ten most of which had reached roofing stage but have remained abandoned since 1983 As at today, the project has been overgrown by weeds and some of the buildings yielding to the natural consequences of their continued exposure to the vagaries o weather. In his own contribution, (Alozie, 2008:5) opines, “successive administrations in the State had refused to pay attention to the project and hoped that this administration would remember this abandoned project of the Second Republic”.
LACK OF FINANCE
Finance is perhaps the most apparent, if indeed not the most serious of the problems of housing in this country. According to Gana, (1988:6), the Nigerian housing finance system as was constituted during the Shagari regime was seriously ill-equipped to mobilize and channel resources towards housing production on a massive scale…. The Bank has also found it very difficult to mobilize adequate funds for the housing sector. Apart from the equity capital of N150 million, the Bank’s major sources of funds appear to be loans from the Federal Government and the Central Bank of Nigeria. Such loans amounted to N220.8 million from the Federal Government and N25.7 million from the Central Bank. Funds from savings deposits rose from about N21.4 million in 1979 to only N113.2 million in 1984. Muhammed, Olu and Achebe, (1980:17) state that,
on the basis of statistics supplied by the various housing authorities in the country, an average housing unit of three Bedroom Bungalow costs approximately N30,000.00 Assuming each State is to build 20,000 housing units in a year, it will require N600 million to meet its target. If the States abandoned everything else and concentrated all efforts in financing housing construction, all their resources would not be adequate to the task. Federal Government on the other hand would require six billion Naira to meet its housing programme to the nation. It is clear therefore, that alternative sources of finance have to be sought if our requirements for housing in the next few years are to be met.
Finance and credit, especially for housing, have been difficult to mobilize for a number of reasons but most these are “attributable to the absence of a viable housing finance system. Finance constitutes a fundamental centerpiece in any housing development project, the ability of a developer to mobilize enough funds for the project determines largely the success of the housing policy” (Okupe, 2002:14). Most Nigerians, in achieving the dream of owning a house, were forced to look for funds from many sources including the financial institutions, which most of the time:
charged the same interest rate required for other businesses, for transactions involving housing development. Not even the provision of the National Housing Funds (NHF) Decree 3 of 992, which required every commercial or merchant bank to invest rate of one per cent (1%) above the interest rate payable on current accounts by banks have provided the required magic (Oyediran, 1990:12).
In his own contribution, Igbozuruike, (1988:20) opines “the Second Republic housing programme which was conceived and started was suspended, owing to financial constraints in 1984”. In their own contribution, Mohammed, Olu, Hananiya, and Achebe (1980:3) write: “according to the programme, each State shall achieve the programme within the limits of funds available to it from Federal Government”. On the other hand, Ajalenkoko (2002:17) writes, “among the components of finance are high rate of default in loan repayment by mortgagors, and delays in the release of refund by the governments”.
INADEQUACY OF MORTGAGE FACILITIES
It is noteworthy to mention that the housing programme would not be complete without an exhaustive and effective mortgage system in place. As stated by Ebie, (1980:7), “the fund, since inception, has been ineffective to adequately address the yearning needs of most Nigerians. Accessing the fund is somehow difficult because of the stringent conditionality for obtaining the National Housing Fund loans by individuals”. Akeredo-Ale in his contribution writes “the Nigerian Mortgage system needs an urgent restructuring if the housing crisis is to be addressed. The application of short-term mortgage where a house buyer would be required to pay 50% down payment and the balance within six years as currently practiced by some developers is not the solution to the mortgage market”, while Ani, (1998:12) states that “the mortgage facility of the National Housing Fund (NHF) is a commendable option for affordable long-term facility for