All you need to know about proposed law to regulate house rent in Abuja

For many residents of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), securing a roof over their heads can mean raising hundreds of thousands, and sometimes millions, of naira at once.

Beyond the annual rent itself, prospective tenants often have to contend with agency, agreement and caution fees, while existing tenants face rent increases that can force them to move to less expensive and sometimes more distant communities.

It is against this backdrop that the House of Representatives has begun consideration of a new bill seeking to regulate advance rent payments and protect tenants from what it describes as unlawful rental practices.

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 first reading on Thursday, 22 October.

But the proposal is not simply another attempt to tell landlords how much rent to collect.

A closer look at the 17-page bill obtained by PREMIUM TIMES shows that it seeks to create an entire regulatory framework for tenancy in the FCT, covering advance payments, written agreements, agents, complaints, refunds, eviction practices, penalties and dispute resolution.

The central provision is contained in Section 4 of the bill.

Section 4(1) of the bill provides that a landlord, estate agent or property manager “shall not demand, receive or compel a tenant to pay more than twelve months’ rent in advance” as a condition for granting, renewing or continuing a tenancy.

This simply prohibits the demanding, receiving or compelling of a tenant to pay more than one year’s rent in advance as a condition for obtaining, renewing or continuing a tenancy.

That means the bill does not ban advance rent or make monthly rent compulsory. Instead, it establishes 12 months as the maximum amount that can be compulsorily demanded upfront.

A landlord would still be able to collect one year’s rent in advance if that is the agreed arrangement. But demanding two or three years as a condition for granting or renewing a tenancy would become an offence if the bill becomes law.

The bill also attempts to prevent landlords and agents from simply finding another way around the restriction.

It specifically lists intermediaries, unexplained premiums, compulsory service charges, artificial renewal or re-grant of a tenancy, separate agreements and other arrangements designed to extract more than 12 months’ rent in advance as prohibited means of evasion.

The proposed restriction has an exception. Section 4(4) states that a tenant may voluntarily pay more than 12 months’ rent in advance if “the tenant initiates the offer” and the payment is not imposed by the landlord and the tenant must not have been subjected to coercion, discrimination, threats or retaliation.

The agreement must be recorded in writing, and the person receiving the payment bears the burden of proving compliance.

This could become one of the contentious provisions during the legislative process.

While the bill attempts to distinguish voluntary payments from compulsory demands, proving that a tenant genuinely volunteered to pay several years’ rent could be difficult where the landlord controls access to the property.

The proposed law also seeks to formalise the relationship between landlords and tenants.

Section 5 requires landlords or their authorised agents to provide written tenancy agreements stating the rent, payment schedule, duration of the tenancy, refundable deposits, fees and other charges, and the rights and obligations of both parties.

“A landlord or agent shall not impose a fee, premium, charge or other compulsory payment unless its nature, amount and lawful basis were disclosed to the tenant before the tenancy agreement was concluded.”

Landlords and agents would also be required to disclose the nature, amount and legal basis of compulsory fees before a tenancy agreement is concluded and issue receipts or verifiable electronic acknowledgements for payments.

The bill also prohibits retaliation against tenants who refuse to make unlawful payments or who complain about violations.

A landlord or agent would not be allowed to threaten or unlawfully evict such a tenant, impose a punitive charge, withdraw a lawful benefit or otherwise retaliate against the tenant.

The bill introduces a remedy that could significantly change the balance between tenants and landlords.

Section 7 introduces a mechanism for recovering unlawfully collected rent. A tenant who has paid rent in violation of the proposed 12-month limit could apply to the proposed FCT Rent Regulation and Tenants’ Protection Authority for a refund.

Where the proposed authority determines that a payment contravened the law, it may order the recipient to refund the unlawful amount within 30 days.

The bill also allows an aggrieved party to appeal an order of the authority to the FCT High Court.

“7(1) A tenant who has paid rent in contravention of section 4 may apply to the Authority for a refund order. (2) Where the Authority determines that a payment was received in contravention of section 4, it may order the recipient to refund the unlawful amount within thirty days after service of the order.”

Under Section 8, the bill proposes the establishment of the Federal Capital Territory Rent Regulation and Tenants’ Protection Authority.

The authority would receive and investigate complaints, monitor landlords, estate agents and property managers, issue compliance notices, facilitate mediation, order refunds and refer suspected criminal offences to relevant law-enforcement or prosecuting authorities.

It would also establish complaint offices and electronic reporting channels throughout the FCT, including satellite towns, and publish periodic reports on rental practices and enforcement outcomes.

Its governing board would include representatives of the FCT Administration, the federal ministry responsible for housing, the federal ministry responsible for justice, tenants, landlords or property owners and estate surveyors and valuers.

The president will appoint the chairperson and members of the board, subject to Senate confirmation. The president will also appoint the director-general, subject to Senate confirmation.

A person convicted of knowingly demanding or receiving unlawful advance rent would face a fine of between ₦500,000 and ₦5 million.

A corporate body could face a fine of between ₦5 million and ₦20 million.

The court could also order refunds, compensation for proven losses and payment of lawful costs.

Failure to comply with a compliance notice issued by the proposed authority would also constitute an offence punishable by a fine of up to ₦1 million.

Estate agents and property managers are expressly covered. Where an offence is committed through an intermediary, anyone who knowingly authorised, participated in or facilitated the offence could also be liable.

The bill is not solely about the amount of money tenants pay. It also targets the methods some landlords may use to recover possession.

It prohibits violence or threats, disconnecting essential services, removing or damaging a tenant’s property, changing locks without lawful authority and other forms of unlawful self-help.

At the same time, it makes clear that tenants remain obliged to pay rent lawfully due and that landlords retain the right to recover rent and possession through due process.

This is significant because the bill attempts to protect tenants without removing landlords’ existing property rights.

This is perhaps the biggest question the lawmakers will have to confront.

The bill regulates how much rent can be demanded upfront, but it does not regulate the actual amount landlords can charge as rent.

There is no rent ceiling and no limit on how much rent can increase when a tenancy is renewed.

A landlord who cannot demand two years’ rent upfront could still charge a high annual rent.

The bill also does not address the shortage of affordable housing, construction costs, mortgage access or the wider factors driving rent increases.

Its impact will therefore depend heavily on enforcement.

The proposed authority would have to monitor landlords and agents, investigate complaints and enforce its decisions across the FCT.

The bill also provides for the authority to become operational within six months of the law taking effect.

Despite its proposed restrictions on advance rent, the bill does not comprehensively regulate other charges tenants face when securing accommodation in Abuja, including agency fees, agreement fees and caution deposits. In Abuja, these charges are random and some tenants pay as high as 40 per cent of their rent for them.

Although Section 5 requires landlords and agents to disclose the nature and amount of charges, it does not prescribe a maximum percentage or amount that can be demanded as agency or agreement fees. Neither does it establish a standard ceiling for caution deposits. The bill requires refundable deposits to be stated in tenancy agreements but does not clearly set out a standard formula for calculating them.

This means tenants could have a clearer right to know what they are paying for without necessarily having protection against excessive charges.

Section 4 prohibits landlords and agents from using charges that are not reasonably related to a service as a means of circumventing the 12-month advance rent restriction. However, this does not amount to a comprehensive regulation of legitimate agency fees or other letting costs.

Consequently, tenants could still face substantial upfront expenses even if the bill becomes law. A landlord may no longer be able to compel a tenant to pay two years’ rent, but the tenant could still be required to pay agency, agreement and other charges, provided those charges comply with the law.

Another major issue left unresolved is the payment arrangement for salary earners.

Many Abuja residents earn monthly salaries but are expected to pay a full year’s rent upfront, with some landlords demanding two years’ rent from new tenants. For workers whose income comes in monthly, raising such a large sum at once can be difficult, even when they can afford the rent over the course of a year.

The proposed law would prohibit landlords from compelling tenants to pay more than 12 months’ rent in advance. However, it does not require landlords to accept monthly or quarterly payments.

A landlord could therefore still insist on a full year’s rent upfront, provided the demand does not exceed the proposed limit.

This means the bill addresses the length of compulsory advance rent but does not fully address the financial difficulty created by the annual payment system.

A tenant who cannot raise 12 months’ rent at once may therefore remain unable to secure accommodation, even if the landlord is no longer demanding two years’ payment.

The latest proposal is part of a longer-running attempt by lawmakers to address rent practices in Abuja.

In January 2022, the Senate introduced a bill sponsored by Smart Adeyemi, then representing Kogi West, seeking to regulate the payment of rent in the FCT. The bill passed second reading in February 2022.

Mr Adeyemi argued that the existing system placed an excessive burden on low-income residents, particularly salaried workers who could not easily raise one or two years’ rent at once.

While supporters argued that advance rent was placing unbearable pressure on residents, Chimaroke Nnamani, then the senator for Enugu East, opposed the proposal, arguing that rent payment was an economic matter that should be driven by market forces, including the availability of land, construction costs and income.

He argued that the government should instead invest in housing schemes, mortgages and housing credit rather than regulate the business of private landlords.

The Senate nevertheless voted overwhelmingly for the bill at second reading and referred it to the Committee on Housing and Urban Development for further consideration.

However, the bill ultimately lapsed and did not become law before the expiration of the 9th National Assembly in May 2023.

Under Nigerian legislative rules, any bill that does not complete all stages of passage, including matching approval by the House of Representatives and presidential assent, before the end of a four-year parliamentary tenure expires and must be completely reintroduced.

The difference between the two proposals is substantial.

While Mr Adeyemi’s bill sought to replace the annual advance payment system with an initial three-month payment and subsequent monthly payments, the 2026 proposal allows landlords to continue demanding up to 12 months’ rent in advance.

The new bill, therefore, does not go as far as the 2022 proposal in addressing the difficulty faced by salary earners. It seeks to prevent compulsory payments beyond one year but leaves the annual payment arrangement intact.

The distinction matters because limiting advance rent to 12 months does not necessarily make accommodation more accessible to workers who receive their income monthly.

Having passed first reading in the House of Representatives, HB.2839 is still at an early stage of the legislative process.

The next stage is second reading, when lawmakers will debate the general principles and objectives of the proposal and decide whether it should proceed to detailed consideration.

If it passes, the bill will be referred to the relevant House committee for scrutiny. At this stage, lawmakers may examine its provisions clause by clause, invite submissions from government agencies, landlords, tenants, estate agents and housing professionals, and hold a public hearing to obtain views from affected groups.

The committee will subsequently present its report and recommendations to the House at plenary. Lawmakers will consider the report and any proposed amendments before the bill proceeds to third reading, when the House will consider its final version and vote on its passage.

If passed by the House, the bill will be transmitted to the Senate for consideration. Both chambers must pass the same version. Where their versions differ, the disagreements must be reconciled before the harmonised bill is transmitted to the President for assent.

The president’s assent would bring the bill into law, subject to the applicable constitutional process.

If enacted, the proposed legislation will establish the FCT Rent Regulation and Tenants’ Protection Authority. The bill states that the authority should become operational within six months of commencement, while the FCT minister is expected to take steps towards appointing its board and director-general within three months.

The bill also provides that its commencement date will be determined by the president through a notice published in the Federal Gazette.

Until the legislative process is completed and the law comes into force, the proposed restrictions and penalties remain legislative proposals and cannot be enforced against landlords or agents.

Please enter your username or email address to reset your password.