RIVERS STATE UNIVERSITY,

NKPOLU – OROWORUKWO, P.M.B. 5080 PORT HARCOURT,

RIVERS STATE, NIGERIA.

BONDS FOR LOW-COST HOUSING IN NIGERIA

GROUP 8
LEVEL: MSC 1

DEPARTMENT: ARCHITECTURE

COURSE CODE: URP

DATE: JANUARY 2023.

1
Contents
ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................................................. 3
1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................. 4
1.1 Definition of terms .............................................................................................................................. 4
1.2 Housing provision ............................................................................................................................... 4
1.3. Low-cost housing ............................................................................................................................... 4
1.4 Low-cost housing bonds ..................................................................................................................... 4
2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW ....................................................................................................................... 5
2.1 PUBLIC SECTOR INTERVENTION IN HOUSING IN NIGERIA ..................................................... 5
2.11The colonial era.................................................................................................................................. 5
2.12 The second civilian republic (1979-1983) ........................................................................................ 6
2.2 SITUATION OF HOUSING IN NIGERIA ............................................................................................ 7
2.3 SUSTAINABILITY IN HOUSING PROVISION ................................................................................. 8
2.4 BONDS FOR LOW-COST HOUSING IN NIGERIA ......................................................................... 11
3.0 METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................................... 13
3.1 CASE STUDY ...................................................................................................................................... 13
3.2 POLICY IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................ 14
4.0 CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................................... 15
REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................... 16

2
ABSTRACT
This paper discusses a strategy and functional approach for the provision of low-cost housing for
the urban poor in Nigeria. It notes the rapid rate of urbanization occurring in Nigeria, which is
due mainly to massive rural-urban drift, and explosive urban population growth. A major
consequence of this occurrence has been the deterioration of housing situation in the urban
centers, manifested in severe shortages of housing units, and overcrowding in poor quality
buildings that are situated in degraded environment. The urban poor constitute the vast majority
of urban dwellers and they are in a disadvantaged economic position to build for themselves
and are generally unable to make effective demand of existing housing. Housing this urban
population is a major thrust of sustainable urban development. This paper asserts that a strategy
for achieving the goal of adequately housing the urban poor is extensive mass housing
development employing indigenous materials and methods, and involving the target population
from policy making through programme execution. This is a bottom-up, participatory approach
that will ensure the sustainability of the housing development. A case study, State Housing
Estate, Oke-Ila, Ado-Ekiti, Nigeria in which indigenous materials were used in some buildings,
was examined in the paper. The paper also looks at experiments with indigenous materials in the
construction of model low-cost houses, and these include the Pampomani Housing Estate in
Maiduguri, Borno state, Nigeria, and Yakatsari resettlement scheme in Kano, Nigeria. The
paper examines earth architecture as a relevant indigenous technology and recommends its use in
housing the teeming poor majority in Nigerian urban centres

3
1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Definition of terms

Housing is the environment in which man lives and grows. It is an essential need of man without
which his very existence is not feasible, which is why it is described as a sine qua non of human
living (Yakubu, 1980).

1.2 Housing provision

Housing provision is one of the major challenges facing developing countries. The problem is
more acute in the urban areas as there is a high rate of urbanization occurring in these countries.
The high rate of population explosion, continuous influx of people from the rural to the urban
centers coupled with lack of basic infrastructure required for good standard of living have
compounded housing problems over the years. The urban centers in Nigeria are facing the
problem of acute shortage of affordable accommodation, and rapid deterioration of existing
housing stock and living conditions. The provision of housing does not really match the growth
of the population in most urban centers; which accounts for the monumental deficiency in urban
housing quantitatively and qualitatively (Jagun, 1983, Olotuah 2000; 2002a). Housing needs are
not matched by effective demand since the large majority of the populace does not have the
wherewithal for adequate housing.

1.3. Low-cost housing

In the context of low-cost housing, this takes into consideration the social and cultural values of
the urban and rural poor, their real needs and priorities, and consent in housing provision for
them. It is in this regard that a participatory approach, which takes its root from the communities,
is best positioned to ensure sustainability in housing provision for lowincome earners. The aim
of this paper is thus to show that bottom-up participatory approach is required to achieve
sustainability in housing development in Nigeria. This is in view of the debacle in public sector
intervention in housing in the country for a period of over sixty years from the pre-independence
era, and the inability of the private sector to meet the housing needs of Nigerians. Specifically
the objectives of the paper are to examine the impact of public sector intervention in housing,
especially on the lives of low-income earners; to examine the housing situation in the country;
and finally to highlight ways in which participatory approach can be adopted for housing
development in the country.

1.4 Low-cost housing bonds

State and local governments sell tax-exempt Housing Bonds, commonly known as Mortgage
Revenue Bonds (MRBs) and Multifamily Housing Bonds, and use the proceeds to finance low-
cost mortgages for lower-income first-time homebuyers or the production of apartments at rents
affordable to lower-income families.

4
2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 PUBLIC SECTOR INTERVENTION IN HOUSING IN

NIGERIA
2.11The colonial era
In the colonial era government policy was not directed towards the provision of housing for all
but emphasis was focused essentially on the provision of quarters for the expatriates and for the
few selected indigenous staff in specialized occupations like the Railways, the Police and a few
others. During this period, Government Residential Areas (GRAs) as well as a few African
Quarters were established. There were no efforts by government to build houses for sale or rent
for the general public, and neither was government concerned with ordering the growth of
informal settlements, resulting in slum and squalid environment. The Lagos Executive
Development Board was created in 1928 due to the bubonic plague, which ravaged the city of
Lagos in the early 1920s. The notable works of this board were the demolition of fifty acres of
derelict property in Idimago in Lagos, Nigeria. The board was also responsible for the
development of the Workers Housing Estate at Surulere, Akinsemoyin and Eric Moore Housing
Estate Surulere, Workers House Estate (Phase II) Surulere and the Freehold Housing Estate
Phase II Surulere, all in Lagos, Nigeria. This was the first direct attempt by Government in
solving problems of housing in the Lagos area of Nigeria.
In 1956 the Nigerian Building Society (NBS) was established to provide Mortgage Loans. Not
much was achieved due to the limited financial resources available coupled with the poor
response of the public to the savings scheme operated by the NBS. At the same year (1956) the
African Staff Housing Fund was introduced. Its primarily function was to provide funds for
African Civil Servants to own their houses. Shortly before independence in 1960 various
regional housing corporations were established by the then Regional Governments to provide
housing for the public. These corporations were unable to extend their services to the low-
income group. Post independence period (1960-1979) Before 1971 there were no plans in the
budget for housing due to neglect. In 1971 the National Council of housing was formed and in
1972 the government set a target of constructing 59,000 housing units in the country, with
15,000 units in Lagos and 4,000 units in each of the then eleven state capitals. In 1972 the
African Staff Housing Schemes was taken over by the Staff Housing Board for the purpose of
granting loans to civil servants to enable them build or purchase their own houses. In 1973 the
Federal Housing Authority was established to coordinate a nationwide housing programme. The
Nigerian Government had then adapted a five-year development plan.
The period 1970-1980 witnessed years that government decided to participate directly and
actively in the provision of housing. A total of 202,000 housing units were proposed for
construction: fifty thousand (50,000) units in Lagos and eight thousand units in each of the
nineteen state capitals. Worthy of note is that less than 15% of these projections were realized
(FGN, 2004). Some events that took place during the period are enumerated below:

5
 i. In 1975, a new Federal Ministry of housing, Urban Development and Environment
was created and charged with the responsibility of monitoring and coordinating the
policies in housing related matters.
ii. The inauguration of the committee on standardization of house type and policies in
1975.
iii. The creation of the anti-inflation task force in 1976 to examine the inflationary trends
as it affected the housing sector.
iv. The establishment of the Rent Panel of 1976 to review the structure and the level of
rents in the country. The recommendations of the panel resulted in the establishment
of the State Rent Tribunals.
v. The establishment of the Land Use Panel of 1979, which led to the promulgation of
the Land Use Decree no 6 of 1978 in Nigeria.
vi. The conversion of the Nigeria Building Society to the existing Federal Mortgage
Bank of Nigeria.

2.12 The second civilian republic (1979-1983)

A lot of measures were introduced during this period, based on the concept of affordability
and citizen participation. Provision of residential accommodation for the low-income earners
was given greater attention. Forty thousand (40, 000) housing units were to be built annually
nationwide; two thousand (2,000) units were to be located in each state capital including the
Federal Capital Territory of Nigeria. Out of this number 80% percent was earmarked for the
low-income earners. By the year 1983, the total achievement recorded was only 20% (FGN,
2004). The second phase of the programme did not take off, consisting of twenty thousand
(20,000) units of two bedroom core houses also for the low-income group. The Federal
Housing Authority (FHA) was later charged with the responsibility of constructing houses on
commercial basis for medium and high-income earners.
The FHA planned a total of 350 units in each state. The impact was not felt, due to the
location of the housing units mostly in remote parts of the country where there was no
demand for them. During this period also various state housing corporations embarked on the
construction of low and medium-income housing with sectoral allocation from the
government Post second civilian administration (1986-2000) The National Housing Policy of
Nigeria was formulated in 1991 and its goal was to ensure accessibility to adequate and
affordable housing for all Nigerians by the year 2000.
Towards achieving this, it was estimated that a total of eight (8) million housing units would
be required to cater for the existing and future needs of the population. This was further
broken down into five million for the urban areas and three (3) million for the rural areas.
Eight hundred thousand (800,000) housing units were estimated to be constructed yearly to
meet this demand. For the success of this policy, a lot of programmes were put in place
namely:

6
 i. The inauguration of the implementation committee on housing policy to facilitate
and coordinate the implementation of the housing policy;
ii. The inauguration of the housing policy council (for monitoring and evaluation of the
housing policy);
iii. The Federal Mortgage Bank was empowered by decree no. 53 of 1989 in Nigeria to
give licenses to the first set of the nation’s Primary Mortgage Institutions.
iv. The National Housing Fund was established,
v. In 1994 the federal government initiated a new housing scheme and proposed to
build 121000 housing units in state capitals where housing needs were acute. Only
1114 housing units were completed (Kado Estate in Abuja) and commissioned on 15
December 1994 in the Federation (Benjamin, 2000).
vi. In 2004 the federal government proposed the construction of 18,500 housing units
throughout the federation, with at least 500 units in each of the states of the
federation and the Federal Capital Territory. The programme took off in April 2005
in Ekiti State.

2.2 SITUATION OF HOUSING IN NIGERIA

In a nation every individual has a right to decent housing. Onibokun (1982) affirms that housing
as a unit of the environment has a profound influence on the health, efficiency, social behaviour,
satisfaction and general welfare of the community. It reflects the cultural, social and economic
values of a society. Research has confirmed the profound inadequacy of housing circumstances
of Nigerians (Onibokun, 1982; Asiodu 2001, Mogbo, 2001; Olotuah and Fasakin 2003). Olotuah
and Fasakin (2003) have shown that the housing circumstances of low-income earners, who
incidentally constitute the vast majority of the population, have not shown any significant
improvement over the years despite public sector intervention in housing provision. Rural-urban
drift, engineered by the attractions of urban-based economic opportunities, has created demand
pressure on the limited houses available, resulting in overcrowding in the existing stock and the
sprouting of makeshift shacks devoid of minimum structural and normative quality. People live
in squalor, sub-standard and poor housing in deplorable conditions, and insanitary residential
environment. The urban centres are characterized by high density of buildings, acute sanitary
problems, pollution of air, surface water, noise and solid wastes (Mabogunje et al., 1978; Jagun,
1983; Filani, 1987; Wahab et al., 1990; Agbola, 1998). As asserted by Wahab et al. (1990) only
33% of urban houses could be considered as physically sound.
As in most Less Developed Countries (L.D.C.s), the situation of housing in Nigeria is
deplorable. Nigeria is a rapidly urbanizing nation in which there is the incidence of massive
rural-urban drift and rapid increase in the points if concentration in the urban centres. The
proportion of the Nigerian population living in urban centres has increased phenomenally over
the years. While only 7% of Nigerians lived in urban centres in the 1930s, and 10% in 1950, by
1970, 1980 and 1990, 20%, 27% and 35% lived in the cities respectively (Okupe, 2002). Over

7
40% of Nigerians now live in urban centres of varying sizes. The rapid rate of urbanization in
Nigeria is however not matched by a corresponding development in technological, industrial and
economic growth which is why there is enormous urban housing poverty in the country. The
result of this is the rapid deterioration of housing in the urban centres and phenomenal increase
in quantitative housing needs arising from shortages in housing units. The rate of expansion of
public infrastructure and services is low compared to the increase in the population of the urban
centres which results in great strain on the facilities and near collapse in many places. Increase in
the quantity of dwelling units too does not match the population explosion resulting in severe
overcrowding in existing units, the growth of squatter settlements in the cities, and the
emergence of slums. Olotuah (2010) affirmed that the housing environments in the urban centres
are severely degraded owing to poor public services and the decay of the building structures
themselves. Urban planning hasn’t been properly coordinated in the circumstance which has
given rise to illegal structures sprouting up in the cities. This has resulted in a situation in which
60% of Nigerians can be said to be ‘’houseless persons’’ (FGN, 2004). Research has confirmed
the profound inadequacy in the housing circumstances of Nigerians, in particular the low-income
population (Olotuah and Aiyetan, 2006). The housing circumstances of low-income earners, who
incidentally constitute the vast majority of the population in Nigeria, have not shown any
significant improvement over the years. Research has shown that an estimated 2.3 million urban
dwelling units are substandard, only 33% of houses can be considered to be physically sound,
and 44% and 19% require minor and major repairs respectively to bring them to normative and
structural quality. Sanitary facilities in most urban dwellings and public services (especially
water and electricity supply) are grossly inadequate. As asserted by Kamete (2006) urban
facilities, especially housing has failed the growing demand of the rural poor.

2.3 SUSTAINABILITY IN HOUSING PROVISION

In sustainable housing people at the grassroots level must be given the opportunity to participate.
Housing programmes ought to be based on genuine local participation. Without reference to the
perceptions and capabilities of local people housing programmes often fail. This is because local
communities are in the best position to identify their needs, and order their priorities. Attitudes
towards space, use and organization of space, are all linked to cultural traditions, which are often
best understood by the local people themselves. Nigeria is a multi-ethnic nation with over 250
tribal groups. Despite striking uniformity and sameness visible in the various house forms in the
country, each tribal group has created its own unique mode of housing, which is sympathetic to
its environment, and mode of life of the people (Olotuah, 2002b). For this reason decisions
reached in the top-down approach to propose prototype-housing design for the entire Nigerian
population have never really succeeded. Local communities have valuable experience, a special
understanding of their environment, their local building resources and the ways of making the
best uses of them.
Thus, housing that will be properly rooted in the cultural, climatic, socioeconomic circumstances
of the people can only emanate from within the communities. Sustainable housing can thus be
defined in the context of folk architecture, which Allsopp (1977) describes as the architecture

8
evolved by the people, built by them, and in the context of their community. At the level of
planning and decision-making local participation is indispensable to sustainable housing. It also
contributes to building local capacity. The grassroots population in the bottom-up approach
comprises the local leaders (village elders, traditional chiefs, representatives of community
groups) women and youth organizations, community-based organizations (local housing
cooperatives, peer groups, social clubs, community associations), and consultative assemblies.
The collective decisions of the local communities can be channeled to the local government area
councils. Members of the legislative arms of the local councils are drawn from the communities,
and thus the local government is ably positioned to collate their input. The local government
carries forward to the state government the input of the local communities, from where it goes to
the national level. The local government councils are closer to their electorate and to civil society
than the federal government. Strengthening the links between local government and their
electorate is thus an important ingredient in the promotion of sustainable development. The
organ of government responsible for housing development is expected to translate the inputs
from the 36 states in the country into a national action program. Workshops and seminars,
involving the local stakeholders, housing associations and cooperatives, and local government
councils should be organized to synthesize all the various inputs.
The bottom-up participatory approach recognizes the contributions of the localgovernments,
state governments and the federal government in the formulation of policy and planning for
housing provision. While it is recognized that the role of federal government is an important one,
it is also widely accepted that much of the implementation of policies aimed at shifting
economies to a sustainable development path, will have to take place not at the level of federal
government, but above and below that, at the international and local levels, respectively. This
was stressed at the 1992 Rio Earth Summit. The wide range of functions of local governments
makes them key players in the design and more especially the implementation of strategies to
promote sustainable development. Based on this view the local government should be
incorporated to participate in decision-making/policy formulation (i.e. they should provide
information on the percentage of housing needs of their locality, percentage of low income
earners, the population growth, type of houses best suited to their local environment). They
should be involved in project implementation, monitoring and evaluation.
The intervention of the public sector in housing should be geared towards facilitating an enabling
environment for housing provision. This does not however preclude direct housing construction
by government for the poor. With due consideration given to the input of the local communities,
government may provide low-cost core housing units directly for them. It can also facilitate the
acquisition of building materials, the cost of which constitute over 70% of the entire cost of a
building. The housing finance system should be operated to enable low-income earners have
access to housing finance. The new National Housing Policy of Nigeria has strategies in this
regard, which include:
i. Making 40% of the National Housing Trust Fund available for low-income and rural
housing;

9
 ii. Ensuring that the National Housing Trust Fund compels the Primary Mortgage
Institutions who access the Fund to participate in the provision of low-income and rural
housing
iii. Encourage and support through Housing Cooperatives and Housing Associations the
provision and maintenance of low-income housing in decent, safe and sanitary
environment.

Housing Situation in Nigeria As in most Less Developed Countries (L.D.C.s), the situation of
housing in Nigeria is deplorable. Nigeria is a rapidly urbanizing nation in which there is the
incidence of massive rural-urban drift and rapid increase in the points if concentration in the
urban centres. The proportion of the Nigerian population living in urban centres has increased
phenomenally over the years. While only 7% of Nigerians lived in urban centres in the 1930s,
and 10% in 1950, by 1970, 1980 and 1990, 20%, 27% and 35% lived in the cities respectively
(Okupe, 2002). Over 40% of Nigerians now live in urban centres of varying sizes. The rapid rate
of urbanization in Nigeria is however not matched by a corresponding development in
technological, industrial and economic growth which is why there is enormous urban housing
poverty in the country.
The result of this is the rapid deterioration of housing in the urban centres and phenomenal
increase in quantitative housing needs arising from shortages in housing units. The rate of
expansion of public infrastructure and services is low compared to the increase in the population
of the urban centres which results in great strain on the facilities and near collapse in many
places. Increase in the quantity of dwelling units too does not match the population explosion
resulting in severe overcrowding in existing units, the growth of squatter settlements in the cities,
and the emergence of slums. Olotuah (2010) affirmed that the housing environments in the urban
centres are severely degraded owing to poor public services and the decay of the building
structures themselves. Urban planning hasn’t been properly coordinated in the circumstance
which has given rise to illegal structures sprouting up in the cities.

This has resulted in a situation in which 60% of Nigerians can be said to be ‘’houseless persons’’
(FGN, 2004). Research has confirmed the profound inadequacy in the housing circumstances of
Nigerians, in particular the low-income population (Olotuah and Aiyetan, 2006). The housing
circumstances of low-income earners, who incidentally constitute the vast majority of the
population in Nigeria, have not shown any significant improvement over the years. Research has
shown that an estimated 2.3 million urban dwelling units are substandard, only 33% of houses
can be considered to be physically sound, and 44% and 19% require minor and major repairs
respectively to bring them to normative and structural quality.
Sanitary facilities in most urban dwellings and public services (especially water and electricity
supply) are grossly inadequate. As asserted by Kamete (2006) urban facilities, especially housing
has failed the growing demand of the rural poor.

10
2.4 BONDS FOR LOW-COST HOUSING IN NIGERIA
Since the late 1960s, the intervention of government in housing in Nigeria has covered provision
of staff quarters, staff housing loans to government workers, direct house construction in public
schemes, and site-and-services schemes. Direct house construction emerged as the leading
strategy of public sector intervention in the 1970s and the early 1980s in 1973, government
proposed the construction of 15,000 housing units at different locations throughout Nigeria
(FGN, 2004). The Federal Housing Authority, which was established that year, had the
responsibility to oversee the program. During the second civilian government, 1979-1983,
government planned to build 40,000 houses annually in Nigeria, for its 4-year tenure. In each of
the then nineteen states and Abuja, the Federal Capital Territory, 2000 units were to be
constructed annually. This was the first phase of the program.
The program was largely designed for low-income earners as 80 per cent of the houses were
earmarked for them. The 1-bedroom core houses, which could be expanded to accommodate two
more rooms, were designed for them. For the other income groups 3-bedroom semi-detached
bungalows, 20,000 of which were to be built throughout the federation. The second phase hardly
took off in many states of the federation while the percentage of success of the first phase was
just 20 (FGN, 2004). The housing strategy of government changed in 1984 from direct house
construction to site-and schemes. This was in the realization of the failure of past programs in
meeting the housing needs of the Nigerian populace. The Federal Ministry of Works and
Housing, which handled the program, developed 20 estates in 12 states, between 1984 and 1988,
in which were 11,393 serviced residential plots.
The decline in the economy of the nation and the seeming inability of government to make a
success of direct house construction reinforced in government the idea of being just a facilitator
of the enabling environment for housing provision rather than the actual key player. In this
connection government has taken the initiative in sensitizing the private sector to be the major
financier of housing. It is in this regard that the National Housing Fund (N.H.F.) was established
in 1992 to nurture and maintain a stable base for affordable housing finance (FMBN, 1998). The
NHF is an offshoot of the National Housing Policy which was launched a year earlier in 1991.
The NHF is thus the financial component of strategic initiatives adopted in the policy.
Mandatory regular contributions are to be made by every Nigerian earning an income of £12
(₦3,000) or more per year. The Federal Mortgage Bank of Nigeria has the responsibility to
collect, manage and administer all contributions to the Fund. The Fund is administered through
giving wholesale mortgage loans to Primary Mortgage Institutions (P.M.I.s) for on-lending to
individuals (who are contributors), as long-term loans for housing purposes only. The
performance of the NHF has been hampered by the lack of adequate capitalization by
government and inadequacy in operational soundness and viability of many of the PMIs.
The quantitative housing needs of the populace, though staggering, have to be met for all
Nigerians to have access to adequate housing. The proper roles of the public sector have access
to adequate housing. The proper roles of the public sector have to be defined for this not to
remain a mirage forever. The public sector will have to take a more definite position in ensuring

11
massive housing development rather than remaining a facilitator or promoter of the enabling
environment for housing delivery. This is premised on the fact that:
i. There is a very high incidence of poverty in the country which makes complete
reliance on the private sector as the sole financier of housing unrealistic. The National
Housing Fund which is supposed to be the source of housing finance is itself, faced
with the difficulty of mobilizing contributions from the informal private sector
compromising self-employed workers. The formal private sector has not been
forthcoming, either, in its contribution to the Fund as the financial institutions
(notably the Commercial Banks and Insurance Companies) have not been
participating in the scheme.
ii. The housing market has distinct peculiarities (for instance its heterogeneous nature,
high-cost relative to income, high transaction costs) which make it particularly
difficult for the private sector to produce a socially optional output. The private
sector, which is essentially profit-oriented, cannot as well ensure an equitable
distribution of housing resources. This is inevitable in a country with high unequal
income distribution. the poor majority will, thus, be subjected to unending housing
poverty in the absence of decisive intervention with respect to direct house
construction of low-cost houses
iii. Massive housing intervention stimulates the economy of a nation, generating
employment opportunities for the building industry and the various components of
the housing market. This can only be initiated by the public sector in a nation with a
high incidence of general poverty. Since the urban poor hardly have the wherewithal
to provide adequately for themselves, government needs to initiate public housing
schemes of low-cost, that will take into consideration the needs of the users (social,
protective and physiological). Flexibility must be entrenched into the design of the
houses since human needs are essentially dynamic in nature. As housing is only a part
of a total demand package such facilities as schools and markets should form a part of
the housing programs. Because local communities are in the best position to identify
their needs, and order their priorities reference need to be made to the perceptions and
capabilities of local people for housing program not to fail (Olotauh and Bobadoye,
2009). Cultural traditions often inform attitudes towards space, and use and
organization of space, and these are often best understood by the local people
themselves. At the level of planning and decision-making local partition is
indispensable to sustainable massive housing development for the urban-poor, which
is the bottom-up approach.

12
3.0 METHODOLOGY
3.1 CASE STUDY
Obasanjo Housing Estate, Ado-Ekiti, Nigeria The Obasanjo Housing Estate, Ado-Ekiti, Nigeria
was conceived by the Federal Government of Nigeria as a part of the Presidential mandate to
construct 500 housing units in each state of the federation and the Federal Capital Territory. The
president of the country had given the mandate to the Association of Housing Corporation of
Nigeria to collaborate with the Nigerian Building and Road Research Institute (NBRRI) to
construct at least 18,500 housing units across the country using local building materials. The
Federal Mortgage Bank of Nigeria was to provide the funds required for the exercise. The
flagging off ceremony for the construction of the housing estate in Ado-Ekiti took place in April
2005. The Ekiti State Housing Corporation was responsible for the execution of the project.
The buildings were constructed with local building materials (red bricks) using NBRRI
fabricated interlocking block-making machine. The housing estate has been completed and the
buildings have been allocated mainly to civil servants, especially in the low-income category. In
the design of the buildings the Ekiti State Housing Corporation took into consideration the user
needs and socio-cultural circumstances of low-income civil servants in the state.
Local participation was actively encouraged in the project. Production of building materials of
indigenous origin by NBRRI was given logistic and material support by government (see Figure
1).

3.11 Yakatsari Resettlement Scheme in Kano, Nigeria and Pampomani Housing

Estate, Maiduguri
The Yakatsari resettlement project in which model buildings were constructed with
cement stabilized bricks and fiber-reinforced cement roofing sheets had tremendous cost
savings (Olotuah, 2002). The cost of the project was borne by the Kano State Government while
NBRRI provided the technical expertise on the building materials technology. In a similar vein,
the Borno State Government, through its Housing Corporation collaborated with NBRRI in the
construction of 50 units of terraced bungalows in the Pampomani Housing Estate, Maiduguri in
1991 and appreciable savings were also made with the use of alternative building materials.

13
3.2 POLICY IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
In sustainable housing people at the grassroots level must be given the opportunity to participate
(Olotuah and Aiyetan, 2006). Housing programmes should be based on genuine local
participation order to ensure sustainability.
Nigeria is a multi-ethnic nation with over 250 tribal groups with visible uniformity and sameness
in their various house forms. Despite this each tribal group has created its own unique mode of
housing, which is sympathetic to its environment, and mode of life of the people.
Therefore, decisions reached in the top-down approach to propose prototype housing design for
the entire Nigerian population have never really succeeded. The development of indigenous
building materials technology is indispensable in meeting the needs of the urban poor.
Research efforts in the development of middle-level technology should be encouraged and
funded by government and the research findings should be widely publicized to encourage their
usage. The cost of low-cost houses built by the government in previous programmes was so
outrageously high that the poor could not afford them.
The affluent in the society ended up acquiring the buildings and in a good number of cases let
them out to the poor. In order to achieve adequate housing for the poor, government needs to
devise a means to bring the cost of housing within the economic reach of the poor.
Accountability must be entrenched in government contracts for the public housing schemes to
ensure that the unit costs of the buildings do not end up being unreasonably high.

14
4.0 CONCLUSION
Housing is one of the basic needs of humanity. The Nigerian housing policy was conceived in
good faith with intention of providing cheap and affordable housing to the people, especially the
low-income earners. The fact remains that using local earth materials in the construction of
buildings in Nigeria will help in reducing the overall cost, and will make the houses affordable
and cheaper.
Housing programs should be based on involvement of the user population from policy making
through program execution in order to ensure sustainability. With due considerations given to the
input of the local communities, government should initiate massive housing development
programs to cater for the needs of the urban poor. The development of indigenous building
materials technology is indispensable in meeting the needs of the poor. Therefore, the production
of building materials of indigenous origin by private investors should be given all necessary
support by government. Nigeria is richly blessed with local building materials to develop and
sustain housing provision for all, particularly the urban poor through low-cost housing schemes
The paper has appraised the provision of low-cost housing in Nigeria. It notes that majority of
Nigerians belong to the low-income group, who generally lack the wherewithal to make effective
demand of available housing stock. It asserts the necessity for the bottom-up, participatory
approach in housing provision, which will enable the target population of housing programs have
direct input in policymaking, project implementation and monitoring. This, it posits, will ensure
sustainability in the housing programmes with the houses being rooted in the various Nigerian
cultural, climatic and socio-economic climate.

15
REFERENCES
a. Allsopp, B. (1977): A Modern Theory of Architecture, Routledge and Veegan Paul, London
b. Asiodu I.P.C. (2001) The place of Housing in Nigerian Economic and Social Development.
c. Journal of the Nigerian Institute of Quantity Surveyors. 35(2).
d. Benjamin S. A. (2000): Housing Policy in a Federal System: Past, Present and Future
e. Effective Housing in 21st Century Nigeria, Akinbamijo O.B. et al. (Eds.)
f. Environmental Forum, Federal University of Technology Akure, Nigeria, 30-39
g. Federal Government of Nigeria (FGN) (2004): National Housing Policy
h. Filani, M.O (1987) Accessibility and Urban Poverty in Nigeria? In the urban poor in
Nigeria.
i. Makinwa, P.K and O.A. Ojo (Eds). Evans Brothers (Nig) Publishers Ltd, Ibadan.
j. Galbraith, J.K. (1968) The Affluent Society, London: Hannish Hamilton
k. Jagun, A. (1983) Urban Housing Need Estimate in Nigeria: Governmental Capabilities in Its
l. Provision. Journal of Business and Social Studies 4(2)
m. Mogbo T.C (2001) The Construction Sector and the Economic Growth of Nigeria 1981-1995.
n. Journal of the Nigerian Institute of Quantity Surveyors. 35(2)
o. Olotuah, A. O. (2000) The Challenge of Housing in Nigeria Effective Housing in 21st
Century
p. Nigeria. Akinbamijo O.B.et al. (Eds.) Environmental Forum, Federal University of
q. Technology Akure, Nigeria,. 16-21.
r. Olotuah, A. O. (2002a) Towards Meeting Low- Income Earners Housing Needs in Ado-Ekiti,
s. Nigeria Journal of the Nigeria Institute of Town Planners. 15 15-24
t. Olotuah, A. O. (2002b) Architecture and Cultural Sensibilities: The Implication for National
u. Unity. Arts and Social Sciences Forum. 7 45-56
v. Olotuah and Fasakin (2003) Housing requirements of low-income civil servants in Ado-
Ekiti:
w. A Critico – Empirical Investigation. The Journal of Urban and Environmental
x. Research, 3
y. Onibokun. A. G. (1982) Housing Needs and Responses: A planers view points. Journal of the
z. Nigerian Institute of Town Planners 2(1-2).

16