Nigeria’s housing crisis is no longer just a social challenge, but an economic emergency. With the Federal Government now directing the Federal Mortgage Bank of Nigeria (FMBN) to allocate at least 40 percent of yearly National Housing Fund (NHF) contributions to mortgage financing and increase yearly mortgage disbursements from about 500 to 2,000, the administration deserves credit for acknowledging that access to housing finance must improve. The proposed reforms on tenancy laws, developer regulation, construction quality, land administration and housing data also suggest that the government is beginning to appreciate the complexity of the problem.

Indeed, Nigerians have become increasingly sceptical whenever the government responds to deep structural challenges by announcing larger financial commitments. Experience has taught citizens that simply injecting more money into a broken system rarely fixes the underlying problem. It may ease the pain temporarily, but it often leaves the disease untreated. Housing is perhaps the best example of this recurring policy mistake, as the latest official estimate places Nigeria’s housing deficit at about 14.9 million units, while millions more Nigerians live in substandard housing. Industry stakeholders argue that the effective housing shortage is significantly higher. Regardless of which figure is accepted, the reality remains unchanged that the nation is building far fewer homes than its rapidly growing population requires.

“The average Nigerian worker today struggles with inflation, stagnant wages, rising transportation costs and high food prices. Many cannot even qualify for mortgage financing under existing conditions, let alone afford monthly repayments at prevailing interest rates.”

Against this backdrop, directing more NHF resources into mortgages appears logical. However, mortgages only work when there are affordable houses to purchase, secure jobs that enable borrowers to repay, reliable property titles that lenders can accept as collateral, and interest rates that ordinary Nigerians can sustain. Without these fundamentals, increasing mortgage disbursement simply increases access to financing for a relatively small segment of the population while leaving the majority excluded.

The average Nigerian worker today struggles with inflation, stagnant wages, rising transportation costs and high food prices. Many cannot even qualify for mortgage financing under existing conditions, let alone afford monthly repayments at prevailing interest rates. Expanding mortgage availability without addressing affordability risks creating another policy that looks impressive on paper but delivers limited impact on the ground.

The government’s proposed Renewed Hope Social Housing Scheme, promising 200 housing units in each of the nation’s 774 local government areas, also raises important questions. While the programme could benefit teachers, healthcare workers and other vulnerable citizens, it represents fewer than 155,000 homes nationwide. Compared to a housing deficit running into tens of millions, such intervention, though commendable, barely scratches the surface.

Nigeria has seen similar interventions before, as housing estates have been launched with fanfare, mortgage schemes announced, committees inaugurated and ambitious targets unveiled. But, decades later, home ownership remains beyond the reach of most citizens because the structural bottlenecks remain largely intact.

The greatest obstacle is not necessarily the shortage of policy ideas. As industry experts rightly observed during the conference, Nigeria has no shortage of housing policies. The nation has development plans, urban renewal programmes, mortgage reforms and land administration guidelines. What has consistently been lacking is effective implementation, institutional discipline and investor confidence.

Land acquisition remains painfully slow under the Land Use Act. Property registration is cumbersome and expensive. Infrastructure such as roads, drainage, electricity and water supply significantly increases construction costs because developers often provide these services themselves. Building materials remain expensive due to exchange rate volatility and import dependence. Approval processes are frequently delayed by administrative and unofficial charges, realities making affordable housing almost impossible to deliver, regardless of how much mortgage funding the government injects into the system.

If Nigeria truly wants to reduce its housing deficit, the focus must shift from financing demand alone to increasing supply sustainably. The government should make land administration faster, cheaper and fully digitised. States should simplify title registration and reduce transaction costs. Local production of cement, steel, roofing materials and finishing products should receive greater policy support to reduce construction costs. Public infrastructure investments should open new areas for private housing development instead of concentrating pressure on already congested urban centres.

Equally important is restoring investor confidence. Transparent regulations, enforceable contracts, protection for buyers’ funds and professional accountability can encourage pension funds, insurance firms, private equity investors and international financiers to commit long-term capital to housing development.

The private sector must become the engine of housing delivery, while the government creates the enabling environment. Public-private partnerships should move beyond ceremonial ground-breaking events to measurable housing completion targets backed by transparent monitoring.

Perhaps the most encouraging announcement from the conference was the plan to establish a National Housing Industry Data Observatory. Reliable housing data can improve planning, reduce speculation and enable evidence-based policymaking. Nevertheless, even this initiative will succeed only if the data collected influences decisions rather than gathering dust on government shelves.

Finally, Nigeria cannot spend its way out of the housing crisis. The temptation to throw more money at every national challenge has repeatedly produced disappointing outcomes in sectors ranging from agriculture to electricity and education, and housing should not become another example.