Reps Pass Bill to Stop FCT Landlords from Demanding More Than One Year’s Rent Upfront

The House of Representatives has passed for second reading a bill seeking to prevent landlords, estate agents and property managers in the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) from demanding more than 12 months’ rent in advance.

The proposed legislation, sponsored by Professor Nnamchi and co-sponsored by Ahmed Yusuf Doro, is aimed at protecting tenants from excessive advance rental payments and other exploitative practices.

Titled A Bill for an Act to Regulate Advance Rental Payments, Prohibit Compulsory Multiple-Year Rent Demands, Establish the Federal Capital Territory Rent Regulation and Tenants’ Protection Authority, Provide Remedies for Unlawful Rental Practices, and for Related Matters, the bill seeks to promote fairness in rental transactions across the FCT.

Leading the debate, Nnamchi said excessive advance rent demands had placed significant financial pressure on residents, affecting household savings, small businesses and employment opportunities.

He explained that the proposed law would regulate advance rental payments, establish a unified platform for identifying housing agents, set reasonable limits on agency fees and protect tenants against coercive rental practices.

“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,” he said.

“Agents deserve professional recognition. And tenants deserve fairness and protection from exploitation.”

Under Section 4 of the bill, landlords, estate agents and property managers would be prohibited from demanding, receiving or compelling tenants to pay more than 12 months’ rent upfront.

However, the proposal allows tenants to voluntarily pay beyond 12 months, provided the landlord does not impose the arrangement and both parties document their agreement in writing.

The bill also seeks to establish a Federal Capital Territory Rent Regulation and Tenants’ Protection Authority to investigate complaints, mediate disputes and enforce compliance with the proposed law.

It proposes fines ranging from ₦500,000 to ₦5 million for landlords who violate its provisions, while corporate offenders could face penalties of between ₦5 million and ₦20 million.

During the debate, several lawmakers expressed support for the proposal but called for amendments to address concerns surrounding property rights, the scope of regulation and the circumstances under which multiple-year rental agreements may be necessary.

Idris Zacharias, who represents Ida/Igalamela-Ibaji/Ofu Federal Constituency of Kogi State, described the bill as important but urged lawmakers to consider broader land and housing issues in the FCT. He also called for the House Committee on FCT and Area Councils to participate in its further consideration.

Similarly, Chinedu Ogah, representing Ikwo/Ezza South Federal Constituency of Ebonyi State, supported the proposal, citing the high cost of renting business premises in Abuja.

He disclosed that a three-bedroom office in Wuse costs between ₦25 million and ₦30 million annually, with agency fees adding to the financial burden.

Jafaru Gambo, representing Bogoro/Dass/Tafawa Balewa Federal Constituency of Bauchi State, also backed the bill but suggested that the word “prohibit” be replaced with “regulate” in its title. He further argued that the proposed legislation should be extended nationwide rather than restricted to the FCT.

Ibe Osonwa, representing Arochukwu/Ohafia Federal Constituency of Abia State, cautioned against an outright ban on multiple-year rental arrangements, noting that certain circumstances could justify such agreements.

Kaduna lawmaker Joseph Bagudu raised similar concerns, arguing that regulation would be more appropriate than prohibition, particularly in view of rising building material costs and landlords’ need to recover their investments.

Meanwhile, Ayodeji Alao-Akala, representing Ogbomoso North/South/Orire Federal Constituency of Oyo State, supported the bill, saying compulsory multiple-year rent demands placed an unreasonable burden on young people and newly married couples.

He called for the legislation to accommodate monthly, six-monthly and annual payment arrangements while preventing landlords from forcing tenants to pay several years’ rent upfront.

However, Patrick Umoh, representing a constituency in Akwa Ibom State, raised constitutional concerns relating to 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.

Presiding over the debate, Deputy Speaker Benjamin Kalu dismissed concerns that the proposal violated the 1999 Constitution, as amended.

He cited Section 16 of the Constitution, which provides for the promotion of citizens’ welfare and access to suitable and adequate shelter, arguing that housing was an essential sector requiring regulation in the public interest.

House Leader Julius Ihonvbere also supported the proposal, pointing to the difficulties residents face in securing accommodation and the activities of unregistered estate agents.

He disclosed that the bill would proceed to a public hearing to enable Nigerians, professionals and other stakeholders to contribute to its consideration.

Minority Leader Frederick Agbedi urged lawmakers to support the legislation, arguing that excessive rental costs had forced many FCT residents into overcrowded and unsuitable accommodation in satellite towns and surrounding suburbs.

Wale Raji, representing Epe Federal Constituency of Lagos State, however, maintained that rent regulation alone would not resolve the housing crisis, stressing the need to increase housing supply and invest in social housing.

Sunday Umeha, representing Enugu State, also dismissed the constitutional objections and urged lawmakers to allow the bill to proceed for further scrutiny and possible amendments.

The bill’s passage at second reading marks another stage in the legislative process. It is expected to undergo further consideration, including a public hearing, before lawmakers decide whether to approve it.