Abuja’s Rent Crisis: New Bill Targets Excessive Advance Payments but Leaves Major Tenant Costs Untouched

THE growing cost of securing accommodation in Abuja has placed enormous pressure on residents, particularly low-income households and workers who depend on monthly salaries. For many prospective tenants, finding a home means raising hundreds of thousands or even millions of naira before moving into a property.

The burden rarely ends with the rent itself. Agency fees, agreement charges and caution deposits can add substantially to the initial payment, while frequent rent increases force some existing tenants to relocate to cheaper and more distant neighbourhoods.

Against this backdrop, lawmakers in the House of Representatives have begun considering a proposal intended to regulate advance rent payments and strengthen tenants’ protection in the Federal Capital Territory (FCT).

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.

The proposed legislation seeks to establish a regulatory system covering landlords, estate agents, property managers and tenancy agreements. It also provides for complaint investigation, rent refunds, penalties, protection against unlawful eviction and a dedicated regulatory authority.

Nevertheless, its central provision is narrower than some tenants might expect. The bill would prohibit compulsory advance rent payments exceeding 12 months, but it would neither make monthly rent compulsory nor impose a ceiling on rental prices.

One Year’s Rent Would Become the Maximum Compulsory Advance Payment

The most significant provision appears in Section 4, which prohibits landlords, estate agents and property managers from demanding, receiving or compelling tenants to pay more than 12 months’ rent in advance.

The restriction would apply when granting a new tenancy, renewing an existing arrangement or continuing an ongoing tenancy.

In effect, the proposed law would establish a maximum of one year’s rent as the amount landlords could compulsorily demand upfront.

A landlord could still collect 12 months’ rent in advance where the arrangement forms part of the tenancy agreement. However, making two or three years’ rent a condition for securing or renewing accommodation would become an offence if the legislation takes effect.

Importantly, the bill does not abolish advance payments. Nor does it require landlords to collect rent monthly or quarterly.

This means the proposal seeks to restrict excessive compulsory demands rather than fundamentally change the annual rent payment system that many Abuja residents currently face.

Landlords Cannot Simply Rename Excessive Charges

The bill also attempts to close possible loopholes that landlords or agents might exploit.

Section 4 identifies several arrangements that could amount to attempts to circumvent the restriction. These include using intermediaries, imposing unexplained premiums, introducing compulsory service charges, artificially renewing or re-granting tenancies, creating separate agreements and adopting other arrangements designed to extract more than 12 months’ rent upfront.

Consequently, landlords and property managers would not be able to escape the proposed restriction merely by describing an excessive rent demand as a different type of payment.

The provision is particularly relevant because a restriction on advance rent could encourage attempts to restructure payments unless the legislation clearly identifies prohibited practices.

Voluntary Payments Above 12 Months Would Still Be Permitted

Despite the proposed restriction, the bill recognises that some tenants may prefer to pay more than one year’s rent upfront.

Section 4(4) therefore permits a tenant to voluntarily offer a longer advance payment, provided the tenant initiates the arrangement.

However, the landlord must not impose the payment or obtain it through coercion, discrimination, threats or retaliation. In addition, the agreement must be documented in writing.

The person receiving the payment would also carry the burden of proving that the transaction complied with the proposed law.

Although this exception offers flexibility, it could become one of the most debated aspects of the legislation. In a housing market where landlords control access to properties, distinguishing genuine voluntary payments from arrangements accepted under pressure may not always be straightforward.

For that reason, the final legislation and its enforcement guidelines may need to establish clear standards for determining whether a tenant freely initiated an extended advance payment.

Tenancy Agreements Would Become More Transparent

Beyond the amount of rent collected upfront, the proposed law seeks to make tenancy agreements more formal and transparent.

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

Furthermore, landlords and agents must disclose the nature, amount and lawful basis of compulsory charges before concluding a tenancy agreement.

The proposal also requires them to issue receipts or verifiable electronic acknowledgements for payments received.

These provisions could help tenants establish what they agreed to pay and provide documentary evidence when disputes arise.

Equally important, the bill prohibits retaliation against tenants who refuse unlawful demands or complain about violations. Landlords and agents would not be permitted to threaten or unlawfully evict such tenants, impose punitive charges, withdraw lawful benefits or take other retaliatory steps.

Tenants Could Recover Unlawful Advance Rent

One of the bill’s most consequential proposals is the right to seek a refund when a landlord or agent collects advance rent contrary to the proposed restriction.

Under Section 7, a tenant who pays rent in violation of Section 4 may apply to the proposed FCT Rent Regulation and Tenants’ Protection Authority for a refund order.

Where the authority establishes that the payment breached the proposed law, it may direct the recipient to refund the unlawful amount within 30 days after service of the order.

This mechanism could give tenants a route to recover money without relying exclusively on lengthy conventional litigation.

However, the bill also provides for judicial oversight. Any party aggrieved by an order of the authority may appeal to the FCT High Court.

Therefore, the proposed arrangement combines administrative intervention with access to the courts.

Proposed Rent Authority Would Monitor Landlords & Agents

To enforce the new framework, Section 8 proposes establishing the Federal Capital Territory Rent Regulation and Tenants’ Protection Authority.

The proposed authority would receive and investigate complaints, monitor landlords and property intermediaries, issue compliance notices and facilitate mediation.

It would also have powers to order refunds and refer suspected criminal offences to relevant law-enforcement or prosecuting authorities.

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

The proposed governing board would draw representatives from the FCT Administration, federal ministries responsible for housing and justice, tenants, landlords or property owners, and estate surveyors and valuers.

The president would appoint the chairperson and board members, subject to Senate confirmation. A director-general would also be appointed by the president, subject to Senate confirmation.

The bill provides for the authority to become operational within six months of commencement. It also expects the FCT minister to take steps towards appointing the board and director-general within three months.

Whether the proposed body can operate effectively will depend on its institutional capacity, funding, staffing and ability to monitor rental practices across the territory.

Landlords & Agents Could Face Heavy Fines

The proposed legislation introduces financial penalties for those who knowingly demand or receive unlawful advance rent.

An individual convicted of the offence would face a fine of between ₦500,000 and ₦5 million.

For corporate bodies, the proposed fine would range from ₦5 million to ₦20 million. Courts could also order refunds, compensation for proven losses and payment of lawful costs.

Furthermore, anyone who fails to comply with a compliance notice issued by the authority could face a fine of up to ₦1 million.

The bill expressly covers estate agents and property managers. It also extends potential liability to anyone who knowingly authorises, participates in or facilitates an offence through an intermediary.

These provisions are designed to prevent landlords, property managers and agents from shifting responsibility when they jointly participate in unlawful rental practices.

Unlawful Eviction Would Attract Regulatory Attention

The proposal also addresses the treatment of tenants when landlords seek to recover possession of their properties.

It prohibits violence, threats, disconnection of essential services, removal or damage to tenants’ belongings, changing locks without lawful authority and other forms of unlawful self-help.

However, the proposed law does not remove landlords’ legitimate rights to recover rent or regain possession of their properties.

Rather, it requires them to follow due process when exercising those rights. Tenants, meanwhile, would remain responsible for paying rent lawfully due.

This approach attempts to establish a balance between protecting occupants against abusive practices and preserving landlords’ property rights.

The Bill Does Not Cap Rent or Prevent Increases

Despite its broad title and regulatory provisions, HB.2839 does not directly control how much landlords charge for accommodation.

There is no proposed rent ceiling, and the legislation does not prescribe a maximum percentage by which landlords may increase rent when renewing a tenancy.

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

The bill also does not directly tackle the shortage of affordable housing, rising construction costs, limited mortgage access or other factors influencing rental prices.

Therefore, its immediate focus is the conduct of landlords and agents rather than the overall cost of accommodation.

The proposed authority would have to investigate complaints, monitor rental practices and enforce compliance if the legislation is to make a practical difference.

Agency & Agreement Fees Could Remain a Heavy Burden

Another major gap concerns the additional charges tenants face when securing accommodation.

Although Section 5 requires disclosure of compulsory fees, it does not prescribe maximum amounts or percentages for agency and agreement charges.

Similarly, the bill does not establish a standard ceiling for caution deposits. It requires refundable deposits to appear in written tenancy agreements but does not clearly provide a standard formula for calculating them.

This means tenants could receive more information about the charges they face without necessarily gaining protection against excessive amounts.

The problem is significant in Abuja, where agency, agreement and related charges can reportedly reach as much as 40 per cent of the annual rent for some tenants.

Section 4 does prohibit the use of charges that are not reasonably related to a service as a way of circumventing the advance rent restriction. Nevertheless, that provision does not comprehensively regulate legitimate agency fees or other letting costs.

As a result, tenants could still face substantial initial expenses even after the proposed 12-month restriction becomes law.

Salary Earners May Still Struggle to Pay Annual Rent

The legislation also leaves a major affordability problem unresolved: the mismatch between monthly salaries and annual rent demands.

Many workers in Abuja earn their income monthly, yet landlords commonly expect a full year’s rent upfront. Some prospective tenants also encounter demands for two years’ payment when seeking new accommodation.

For such workers, the difficulty is not always the total annual rent. Rather, it is the challenge of raising the entire amount at once.

Although HB.2839 would prohibit compulsory payments exceeding 12 months, it would not require landlords to accept monthly or quarterly instalments.

A landlord could therefore insist on a full year’s rent upfront, provided the demand remains within the proposed limit.

Consequently, the bill could reduce excessive advance payments without necessarily making accommodation accessible to workers who cannot raise a full year’s rent at once.

How the 2022 Rent Regulation Bill Failed to Become Law

The House of Representatives proposal follows an earlier attempt by lawmakers to reform rent payment practices in the FCT.

In January 2022, the Senate introduced a bill sponsored by Smart Adeyemi, then senator representing Kogi West, seeking to regulate advance rent payments. The proposal passed second reading in February that year.

Its approach was more far-reaching in relation to payment schedules. It sought to reduce advance rent for new tenants from the prevailing one- or two-year arrangements to an initial three months, followed by monthly payments.

Adeyemi argued that the existing system placed an excessive burden on low-income residents, particularly salaried workers who struggled to raise large sums upfront.

However, the proposal encountered opposition from Chimaroke Nnamani, then senator representing Enugu East. He argued that rent payment was an economic matter that should respond to market forces, including land availability, construction costs and income.

Nnamani maintained that government should instead invest in housing schemes, mortgages and housing credit rather than regulate private landlords’ rental arrangements.

Despite the disagreement, the Senate voted overwhelmingly in favour of the proposal at second reading and referred it to the Committee on Housing and Urban Development for further consideration.

Nevertheless, the bill did not become law before the Ninth National Assembly ended in May 2023.

Under Nigerian legislative rules, a bill that fails to complete all required stages of passage, including approval by both chambers and presidential assent, before the end of a parliamentary tenure lapses. A new assembly must therefore reintroduce it.

Why the 2026 Proposal Is Different

The difference between the 2022 and 2026 proposals is particularly important for salary earners.

Whereas the earlier bill sought to replace the annual advance payment arrangement with an initial three-month payment followed by monthly instalments, HB.2839 would allow landlords to continue demanding up to 12 months’ rent upfront.

Therefore, the latest proposal does not go as far in addressing the financial pressures created by annual rent payments.

Its main objective is to stop compulsory demands exceeding one year, rather than establish a new payment system that aligns rent obligations with monthly earnings.

That distinction could shape the legislative debate, especially as lawmakers consider whether limiting advance rent alone can meaningfully improve access to accommodation.

What Must Happen Before the Bill Becomes Law?

HB.2839 passed only first reading in the House of Representatives on Thursday 22 October. It must therefore pass through several more stages before its provisions can become enforceable.

The next stage is second reading, when lawmakers will debate the proposal’s general principles and objectives. If the House approves it, the bill will proceed to the relevant committee for detailed examination.

During committee consideration, lawmakers may scrutinise its provisions clause by clause and invite submissions from government agencies, landlords, tenants, estate agents and housing professionals.

A public hearing could also allow affected groups to present their concerns and recommend changes.

Following that exercise, the committee will submit its report and recommendations to the House. Lawmakers will then consider the report and any proposed amendments before the bill proceeds to third reading for final consideration and passage.

If the House passes it, the proposal will move to the Senate. Both chambers must approve the same version. Where their provisions differ, they must reconcile the disagreements before transmitting the harmonised bill to the president for assent.

The bill states that the president will determine its commencement date through a notice published in the Federal Gazette.

It also provides for the proposed authority to become operational within six months after the law takes effect, while the FCT minister is expected to take steps towards appointing its board and director-general within three months.

Until the bill completes the legislative process and comes into force, none of its proposed restrictions, penalties or enforcement powers can be applied to landlords and agents as provisions of HB.2839.

The Central Question: Will Regulation Translate into Affordable Housing?

The proposed legislation presents an opportunity to address some of the practices that make renting in Abuja financially demanding. Its restrictions on compulsory advance payments, requirements for written agreements, refund provisions and safeguards against unlawful eviction could strengthen tenants’ protection.

Nevertheless, the proposal leaves important gaps. It does not cap rent, require monthly or quarterly payments, establish maximum agency and agreement fees or directly address the shortage of affordable housing.

For that reason, the final outcome will depend on both the legislation’s eventual provisions and the effectiveness of the proposed regulatory authority.

Lawmakers will also have to weigh the concerns of tenants against landlords’ property rights and the economic realities of providing rental accommodation.

Ultimately, the proposed 12-month limit could offer some protection against excessive advance rent demands. However, it will not, on its own, resolve the wider affordability crisis confronting Abuja residents.