By Promise Eze
ABUJA, May 15 2025 – After graduating in 2019, Jeremiah Achimugu left Sokoto State in northwestern Nigeria for Abuja, the nation’s capital, in search of better opportunities. But life in the city brought unexpected challenges, especially the high cost of housing.

At first, Achimugu stayed with his uncle and worked as a marketer, earning 120,000 naira (USD 73) a month. However, his salary barely covered his basic needs.

“The cost of living in Nigeria’s rapidly developing capital soon ate deep into my salary,” he said. “By the end of the month, I was always broke. Transportation, food, and other expenses were just too much.”

When he began searching for a place of his own, he was shocked by the prices. Even a small one-room apartment in a remote area costs about 500,000 naira (USD 307) a year.

“There was no way I could afford that kind of rent even though the apartment was nothing to write home about,” he said.

Few months later, Achimugu resigned from his job and returned to Sokoto. His dream of building a life in the city was cut short by the soaring cost of living.

“The cost of living and rent in Nigerian cities is too high for young people,” he said. “But these are the places where the opportunities are. Some landlords are taking advantage of young people coming into the cities by raising the rent.”

A Continental Rental Crisis

Achimugu’s experience reflects a larger problem faced by young people across Nigeria. About 63 percent of the country’s population is under the age of 24, and cities are growing rapidly. The United Nations has warned that Nigeria’s urban population is increasing almost twice as fast as the national average. However, housing hasn’t kept up with this growth. As a result, the few available homes are now overpriced. The World Bank estimates the country has a housing shortage of over 17 million homes.

In major cities like Lagos, Abuja, and Port Harcourt, rent prices can range from around 400,000 naira (USD 246) to as much as 25 million naira (USD 16,000) per annum, depending on the location and kind of apartment.

With a monthly minimum wage of 70,000 naira (USD 43), which is often unpaid or delayed, and high unemployment, many young people cannot afford decent housing. This makes it harder for them to settle down, build strong social connections, or feel financially secure.

Nigeria is not alone. Across Africa, young people are being priced out of the rental market. Rapid urbanization, population growth, and economic hardship have made affordable housing a growing concern. In interviews with young people in Ghana, Kenya, South Africa, and Nigeria, IPS confirmed that the same challenges exist across the continent.

Formal housing remains beyond the reach of most Africans, with only the top 5 to 10 percent of the population able to afford it. The majority are left to live in informal settlements, many of which lack essential services such as clean water, electricity, and proper sanitation. Experts have warned that without increased investment in affordable housing, a growing number of young people will struggle to find a place to live.

Kwantami Kwame in Kumasi, Ghana, blames capitalism and the greed of real estate owners for the high cost of rent. He told IPS that the rush for quick profits in the cities is affecting the welfare of young people, most of whom are low-income earners.

“A few weeks ago, I was looking for a one-bedroom apartment in Accra, the capital of Ghana, and I was asked to pay an upfront two-year rent fee of 38,275 Ghanaian Cedis (USD 2,500). The apartment wasn’t even up to standard. The fee didn’t cover water, electricity, or waste bills. It’s really unfair,” said Kwame, who noted that in a country where the monthly minimum wage is just 539.19 Ghanaian cedis (USD 45), there should be provisions for young people to access affordable housing in cities where opportunities exist.

Kwame believes governments should regulate rents and check the excesses of landlords. But Olaitan Olaoye, a Lagos-based real estate expert, sees it differently. He points to limited land availability as a major factor driving up rent and argues that price controls won’t solve the problem.

“Governments in Africa shouldn’t be setting rent prices when they’re not doing enough to tackle inflation, which keeps pushing up the cost of building materials,” he said.

“For instance, in a country like Nigeria, the removal of the fuel subsidy caused prices to skyrocket. This had a ripple effect on everything else, including construction. It led to an increase in the cost of building materials. The government then has no moral right to instruct landlords to reduce their rent,” Olaoye argued.

While he does not excuse the greed of some landlords and estate developers, Olaoye worries that if young people already struggle to rent homes, the dream of owning one may become increasingly unrealistic.

“In the past, it was easier for people to build homes. Prices of building materials were affordable and life was more stable. Back then, when people finished school and got a job, they could start saving right away. They could afford to buy a car, build a house, and live comfortably. But things have changed,” he said.

Inadequate Social Housing Programs

Olaoye’s concerns are echoed by Phoebe Atieno Ochieng in Nairobi, the capital of Kenya. After securing a teaching job in the capital, she left her family home in the countryside of Busia. However, with a monthly salary of only 18,000 Kenya Shillings (USD 140), renting a place in the city was out of her reach.

“I had no choice but to live in a small space provided by the school management within the school premises,” she told IPS. “The houses here are not affordable. A basic one-bedroom apartment costs 120,000 Kenyan shillings per month. I can’t balance my income because I still have to pay taxes, buy food, and take care of other daily needs. Unless I get a better-paying job, I can’t manage.”

Ochieng criticizes the Kenyan government for its failure to provide adequate social housing and ensure access to affordable mortgages.

While the Kenyan government has launched a social housing scheme like the Affordable Housing Programme to help low- and middle-income earners secure decent homes, the initiative has faced growing criticism. Many argue that the houses being built are still unaffordable, and there are widespread concerns about the potential mismanagement of the scheme. Also, the introduction of a mandatory housing tax has sparked outrage, with many questioning why they are being compelled to fund homes they may never qualify for or benefit from.

Similarly, the Nigerian government has made several attempts to address the housing crisis through various national housing programs designed to provide affordable homes in cities. However, these programs have often failed due to poor implementation, inadequate funding, and corruption. Many housing projects have been abandoned, leaving the promise of affordable housing unfulfilled for the majority of Nigerians.

South Africa’s housing crisis is worsening due to rapid urbanization, economic challenges, and the legacy of apartheid. Cities like Johannesburg, Cape Town, and Durban are seeing an increasing number of people move from rural areas in search of better job opportunities, putting pressure on housing infrastructure.

During apartheid, many Black South Africans were confined to overcrowded townships on the outskirts of cities, areas that still lack proper infrastructure and services. As young people flock to cities for better prospects, they face the challenge of unaffordable rent, which, according to Ntando Mji, a receptionist in Cape Town, is limiting their potential.

Although the government has attempted to provide subsidized housing for those with a limited income, the scale of the problem is overwhelming, and millions are still waiting for homes. “In Cape Town, getting a house is so difficult. The agents require a three-month rent deposit, and they scrutinize your income, but even getting approved for a space is really hard,” Mji lamented.

“Because it is mainly commercial entities that build houses, they are so expensive. This is why the South African government should intervene by providing accommodation at lower prices and engaging the private sector in building lower-cost housing in safer areas,” said Bhufura Majola, who told IPS that he waited a year before he could even get a small apartment in a student area far from where he works.

He added, “The high cost of rental prices in South Africa is a big deterrent to young professionals in particular because it takes away their choices of where to stay, especially near places where employment is guaranteed. This has forced many to abandon their dreams.”

Peace Abiola, who lives in Ibadan, Southwest Nigeria, spent all her savings—600,000 naira (USD 369)—on an apartment last year. She works as a freelance content creator for brands, earning an irregular income. Now, with her rent due, she is considering returning to her village because she can no longer afford to keep up.

“I think one solution to this problem is the proper implementation of laws to control the irregular hike in rental prices,” she said, echoing the frustration of many Nigerians who have started protesting and calling on the government to act.

The Nigerian government has repeatedly promised to enforce policies that protect tenants, but none of those pledges have materialized.

“Here, we are just focused on survival or how to pay the next rent or how to get the next meal. This is not how life should be,” Abiola said.

Note: This article is brought to you by IPS Noram in collaboration with INPS Japan and Soka Gakkai International in consultative status with ECOSOC.
IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?’http’:’https’;if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+’://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js’;fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, ‘script’, ‘twitter-wjs’);  

By Andy Currier
OAKLAND, California, USA, May 15 2025 – Last week, at its annual Land Conference in Washington D.C., (May 5-8), the World Bank showed allegiance to the new US administration by dropping the pretense of promoting land reform for climate action and confirming that its land agenda is about boosting corporate profits.

Climate Focus Abandoned to Appease Trump

While it had previously announced that the 2025 conference would focus on the “foundational role of securing land tenure and access for climate action,” the Bank scrambled in response to the seismic political shift brought on by the second Trump presidency.

The administration’s “America First” agenda has slashed global development aid, including 85 percent of USAID programs that were unceremoniously and abruptly ended. After exiting the Paris Agreement on climate, Trump also proposed a budget that would further reduce federal climate change programs.

US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent recently reassured the Bretton Woods Institutions that their largest shareholder would not be pulling out at their Spring Meetings in April 2025. He did, however, specify that the Bank and IMF “must step back from their sprawling and unfocused agendas,” condemning their work on climate, gender, and other social issues.

In response, Bank staff were allegedly instructed not to mention climate or gender at the Spring Meetings, as the institutions cower under US pressure.

Just weeks before the Land Conference started, its website was altered to remove the headline banner on “Securing Land Tenure and Access for Climate Action.” The last-minute shift in messaging – just a year after launching a multi-billion-dollar land initiative – confirms the findings of a recent exposé by the Oakland Institute:

The Bank’s land push was never actually about climate action. Released the week before the conference, the Climatewash report revealed how the Bank intends to open lands to agribusiness, mining of “transition minerals,” and false solutions like carbon credits – fueling dispossession and environmental destruction.

Land Conference homepage in February 2025 (left) and then in May 2025 (right), after focus on climate was scrubbed. Source: The World Bank

At last year’s Land Conference – focused on “Securing Land Tenure and Access for Climate Action” – the Bank unveiled plans to massively expand its influence on land policy around the world through the Global Program on Land Tenure Security and Land Access for Climate Goals.

It announced plans to “ensure 100 million people see greater tenure security… and improve land administration and land access for climate action in 20 countries” over the next five years. Towards these goals, the Bank said it will double its investment in the land sector – from US$5 billion to US$10 billion – and double the number of countries where it will intervene with land projects.

Land Reform to Serve Corporate Interests

Despite the dramatic branding shift, the agenda at last week’s conference did not change and several positive sessions focused on climate action and Indigenous rights were held, including a welcome discussion on the importance of “securing collective lands.” The focus on changing land tenure for “economic growth” and “unlocking private capital,” however, took center stage.

At the opening plenary, Rohitesh Dhawan, President and CEO of the International Council on Mining and Metals (ICMM) – the principal trade association of the mining industry – delivered the keynote.

Given the egregious human rights and environmental record of the mining industry, the ICMM’s prominent platform was both startling and revealing, laying bare the true interests the conference would serve. Dhawan began by explaining why he was “more hopeful than ever” about the bright future so-called “sustainable” mining could provide:

“We can literally move mountains and shift the course of ancient rivers, But should we? In many cases, the answer will be yes, because all things considered, as a society, we may reach consensus that the need for commodities and the opportunity for host countries to prosper, grow, and develop means that mining should go ahead with the least possible disruption to land, impacted people, and nature.”

While Dhawan went on to say that Free, Prior, and Informed, Consent was “front and center in their approach,” and areas like World Heritage Sites were off limits, he assumes communities will eventually come to accept mining on their lands despite the grave social, environmental, and economic toll it has historically inflicted upon them.

In a telling moment, when the opening panel was asked to give an example of a successful co-ownership model between firms and locals, no examples from Africa or Latin America came to mind. These communities continue to push for genuine authority over their lands, but have seen little progress despite these conference hall platitudes and promises.

Later in the week, several sessions focused on securing land for carbon markets, unsurprising given the lead role the Bank plays in promoting this dangerous false climate solution that has failed to reduce emissions. While it has been extensively documented how carbon offsetting primarily benefits predatory actors at the expense of local communities, the Bank continues to champion these schemes.

Other sessions discussed the role land policies can play in “developing” agriculture, another expected focus in light of the Bank’s new plan to double its agri-finance and agribusiness commitments to US$9 billion annually by 2030.

In one event, Malawi was hailed as a land reform success story, despite the role of the Bank in blocking recent efforts to address historical inequities in land ownership, as detailed in the Climatewash report. Instead, the Bank has coerced Malawi to implement policies favorable to agribusiness.

These conferences are largely symbolic and even if the focus was on climate action, the true impact of the Bank’s efforts remains the same. In practice, the Bank’s land programs and policy prescriptions dismantle collective land tenure systems and promote individual titling and land markets as the norm, paving the way for private investment and corporate takeover.

These reforms, often financed through loans taken by governments, force countries into debt while pushing a “structural transformation” that displaces smallholder farmers, undermines food sovereignty, and prioritizes industrial agriculture and extractive industries.

At this critical juncture to address the climate crisis, this impact directly opposes the IPCC’s recommendations around stopping land conversion.

The Bank is now scrambling to appease Trump, who is content to watch the world burn as long as he and his wealthy oligarchs continue to profit. Through its global land reform agenda, the Bank facilitates the dispossession of local communities across the Global South under its past northstar of economic growth.

The mask is now off – and any illusions that these efforts will help secure rights or address the climate crisis have been shattered.

Andy Currier is Policy Analyst at the Oakland Institute.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?’http’:’https’;if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+’://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js’;fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, ‘script’, ‘twitter-wjs’);