Mineral Development and Land Rights in Nigeria

Mineral Development and Land Rights in Nigeria: Reconciling Section 22 of the Mining Act

with the Land Use Act

1. Introduction

Mining is inherently dependent on access to land, yet the ownership and control of mineral

resources may be legally distinct from rights over the surface of the land. This tension is

particularly important in Nigeria, where section 22 of the Nigerian Minerals and Mining Act

2007 gives mining use priority over other uses of land and characterizes such use as an

overriding public interest under the Land Use Act.

This creates a fundamental question for mining jurisdictions: What happens when a valid mining

title is granted over land already occupied or used by another person? Nigeria’s answer is found

principally in section 22 of the Nigerian Minerals and Mining Act 2007 (“the Mining Act”).

Section 22(1) provides:

“The use of land for mining operations shall have a priority over other uses of land and be

considered for the purposes of access, use and occupation of land for mining operations as

constituting an overriding public interest within the meaning of the Land Use Act.”

Section 22(2) goes further. Where a Mining Lease, Small-Scale Mining Lease or Quarry Lease is

granted over land subject to an existing and valid statutory or customary right of occupancy, the

Governor of the relevant State is required, within 60 days, to revoke that right of occupancy in

accordance with section 28 of the Land Use Act.

The provision is powerful. But it should not be interpreted as meaning that mining companies

automatically acquire unrestricted possession of land simply because a mineral title has been

granted. The statutory scheme is more nuanced.

2. Two Different Rights: Mineral Rights and Surface Rights

The starting point is the distinction between mineral ownership and land ownership or

occupation. Section 1 of the Mining Act vests property in and control of mineral resources in the

Government of the Federation. The fact that minerals belong to the Federal Government does

not necessarily mean that every person holding a mineral title automatically owns the surface

land upon which the minerals are located. This distinction is particularly important under

Nigeria’s land regime. The Land Use Act places land within each State under the control of the

Governor, subject to the rights and interests recognized by the legislation. Section 22 of the Mining Act therefore operates at the intersection of two statutory regimes:

Land Use Act regulates rights of occupancy and land administration. Mining Act regulates

mineral resources and mineral development. Section 22 attempts to reconcile the two by

declaring mining to be an overriding public interest.

3. What Does “Priority” Mean?

The wording of section 22 is significant. It does not simply say that a mining titleholder becomes

the owner of the land. Instead, it provides that “the use of land for mining operations shall have

a priority over other uses of land.” The priority is therefore primarily a priority of use. Where

lawful mining operations require access to land, competing uses may have to give way to the

mining operation. For example, agricultural use of a particular portion of land may have to

cease where the land is required for actual mining operations. But this does not necessarily

extinguish all legal interests in the land without compensation. The statutory priority must

therefore be read together with the compensation provisions of the Mining Act.

4. The 60-Day Revocation Mechanism

Section 22(2) creates the most direct mechanism for dealing with existing rights. Where a

Mining Lease, Small-Scale Mining Lease or Quarry Lease is granted over land subject to an

existing statutory or customary right of occupancy, the Governor is required to revoke that right

within 60 days in accordance with section 28 of the Land Use Act. This provision has two

important consequences.

1. First, the grant of a mineral title does not itself purport to be the formal revocation of the existing right of occupancy.
2. Secondly, the Governor remains the statutory authority responsible for the revocation under the Land Use Act.

This is important in understanding the federal and State relationship in Nigerian mining law. The

Federal Government controls mineral resources and grants mineral titles, while the State

Governor administers the relevant land rights under the Land Use Act. Section 22 creates the

legal bridge between those two powers.

5. Mining Priority Does Not Mean Absence of Compensation. 

Perhaps the most important qualification to section 22 is that priority of mining does not mean uncompensated dispossession. Section 70(1)(j) of the Mining Act expressly requires a Mining Lease holder to: “compensate owners or lawful occupiers of land for the revocation of their rights to use the land under this Act.” Section 107 further provides for compensation for disturbance of surface rights and damage to crops, economic trees, buildings and works. Section 108 provides that compensation under this part of the Act is determined by the Mining Cadastre Office, after consultation with the State Mineral Resources and Environmental Management Committee and a Government-licensed valuer. Thus, the statutory model is not: Mining title and the landowner loses everything. It is closer to: Once a mining title is granted, the mining use receives statutory priority, and the existing land rights may be revoked while the affected interests must be compensated. This distinction is critical.

6. Regulation 21: Landowner Consent at the Application Stage

The 2011 Regulations introduce an interesting additional dimension. Regulation 21, dealing with

applications for mineral titles, provides that an application is to be made in accordance with the

Regulations and upon the filing and submission of an Irrevocable Consent Form by

landowners/occupiers. This is significant because it places land interests into the mineral-title

application process itself.

In other words, the regulatory framework does not simply wait until after a mining lease has

been granted before considering land interests. It requires land-related documentation at the

application stage. This creates an interesting relationship with section 22. Section 22 gives

mining use statutory priority, but Regulation 21 recognises that existing landowners and

occupiers are relevant to the process through the consent requirement. The result is a

regulatory framework attempting to balance security of mineral investment with recognition of

existing surface interests.

7. Regulation 22: Obligations of Mineral Title Holders

Regulation 22 imposes several obligations on holders of mineral titles. Among other things, a

titleholder must:

1. use the land for the exploration and mining purposes for which the title was granted;
2. comply with the Act and Regulations;
3. comply with applicable environmental, health and safety requirements;
4. comply with Community Development Agreement obligations; and
5. permit authorised public officers to enter the mining area for inspection. 

The significance of this provision is that the statutory priority granted to mining is purpose-specific. A mining titleholder does not receive unrestricted authority to use the land for any purpose it wishes. The land is to be used for the purposes authorised by the mineral title and subject to the Act, the Regulations and other applicable laws.

8. Regulation 11: Compensation and Social Obligations

Regulation 11 reinforces the compensation principle. It requires mineral-title holders to fulfil

their obligations concerning compensation to owners and occupiers of land acquired or used for

mining operations. It further provides for compensation relating to:

1. surface rent;
2. damage to the surface;
3. economic crops;
4. trees;
5. buildings;
6. works; and
7. other damage, loss or disturbance resulting from mining operations.

The Regulation therefore makes clear that the statutory priority of mining does not remove the

economic consequences of interference with land rights. The titleholder must account for those

consequences.

9. Regulation 12: Determining Compensation

Regulation 12 provides the administrative mechanism for assessing compensation. The Mining

Cadastre Office, after consultation with Mineral Resources and Environmental Management

Committee hereinafter “MIREMCO”, determines the assessment and payment of compensation

and may:

1. establish a special committee;
2. direct the taking of inventories of crops, trees, buildings and other improvements; and
3. engage government-licensed or private surveyors and valuers.

This is particularly important for investors. The cost of acquiring access to land is not limited to

the mineral-title application fees. The project may also involve: surface rent, compensation,

valuation costs, rehabilitation obligations, community obligations. An investor conducting due

diligence should therefore evaluate land-access costs before committing substantial capital to a

mining project.

      10. Surface Rent under Section 102

Section 102 provides another important protection for land interests. A Mining Lease holder

must pay annual surface rent in advance for land occupied or used in connection with mining

operations. The Minister is required, before granting a Mining Lease over private or State land,

to inform the owner or occupier and require the owner or occupier to state the annual surface

rent desired. The Minister may accept the proposed amount where it is considered fair and

reasonable.

The rate is also subject to revision every five years. This demonstrates that Nigerian mining law

recognises a continuing economic relationship between the mining operator and the surface

landholder. The landholder does not necessarily retain the power to prevent lawful mining, but

the law recognises an entitlement to economic compensation for the use of the surface.

11. Section 101: The Rights of Occupiers Are Not Completely Erased

Section 101 is particularly important when considering the breadth of section 22. It provides

that the holder of a Mining Lease exercises its rights subject to limitations relating to surface

rights prescribed under the Act. It further provides that the lawful occupier of land within a

Mining Lease retains the right to graze livestock or cultivate the surface so far as such activities

do not interfere with mining operations. This provision provides an important counterweight to

section 22.

It demonstrates that the Act does not necessarily contemplate the complete elimination of all

surface uses immediately upon the grant of a Mining Lease. Instead, the law attempts to

establish a hierarchy: Mining operations take priority where there is conflict, but compatible

surface uses may continue. This is a more balanced interpretation of section 22.

12. The Limits of Mining Priority

Section 22 should also be read subject to the limitations contained elsewhere in the Act. Not

every parcel of land is automatically available for mining. Section 3 excludes certain categories

of land from mineral exploration and exploitation, including certain military areas, areas

occupied by towns and villages, burial and sacred sites, certain railway areas and areas

protected under relevant legislation. Some categories require specific governmental approval

before mining can occur. Therefore, the proposition that mining has “priority” cannot be interpreted literally as an

unlimited power to enter and exploit any land in Nigeria. The mining title itself must be lawfully

granted, the land must be legally available for the relevant operation, and the titleholder must

comply with the restrictions imposed by the Act and other applicable laws.

13. The Federal–State Tension

Section 22 also exposes a structural tension within Nigerian mining law. The Federal

Government controls mineral resources and mineral-title administration. The State Governor

administers rights of occupancy under the Land Use Act. The mining company requires both: a

mineral title and lawful access to the surface land.

Section 22 attempts to resolve the conflict by declaring mining an overriding public interest and

requiring the Governor to revoke conflicting rights of occupancy within 60 days. But the

effectiveness of this arrangement depends heavily on cooperation between federal and State

institutions. A mining titleholder should therefore not assume that the issuance of a Federal

mineral title automatically eliminates every practical land-access problem.

14. International Perspective

The Nigerian approach reflects a broader international problem in mining law: the need to

reconcile resource development with existing land and community interests. Modern

international mining investment increasingly recognises that legal title alone is insufficient to

guarantee a stable mining operation.

Investors must consider:

1. land tenure;
2. compensation;
3. community relations;
4. environmental impact;
5. Indigenous or customary interests;
6. social licence to operate; and
7. mine closure.

Nigeria’s framework already contains several of these elements through sections 22, 70, 101–

113, 116 and 119 of the Mining Act and Regulations 2011. The challenge is therefore less about

the complete absence of legal rules and more about implementation, institutional coordination

and predictability.

    15. The Real Meaning of Section 22

Section 22 should not be read as a declaration that mineral development automatically

extinguishes private or customary land rights without due process. Its more defensible

interpretation is that Parliament has determined that, where a valid mining title requires the

use of land, lawful mining operations constitute an overriding public interest capable of taking

precedence over competing land uses. The affected landholder is not necessarily entitled to

veto the mining project. But neither is the mining company entitled to ignore the landholder.

The statutory framework requires the consequences of the interference to be addressed

through revocation, surface rent and compensation mechanisms.

Conclusion

Section 22 of the Nigerian Minerals and Mining Act 2007 represents a deliberate legislative

choice in favour of mineral development where mining use conflicts with competing uses of

land. Its declaration that mining constitutes an “overriding public interest” gives mineral

development a privileged position within Nigeria’s land-use framework. Where a Mining Lease,

Small-Scale Mining Lease or Quarry Lease conflicts with an existing statutory or customary right

of occupancy, the Governor is required to revoke that right in accordance with the Land Use Act.

But the priority given to mining is not an unrestricted licence to dispossess. Sections 70, 101–

103 and 107–113 of the Mining Act, together with Regulations 11, 12, 21 and 22 of the 2011

Regulations, demonstrate that the legislature sought to balance mineral development with the

economic and surface rights of landowners and occupiers. The resulting principle can therefore

be expressed simply: In Nigeria, mining may have priority over competing land uses, but mining

priority does not mean land-rights immunity.

For international investors, this distinction is fundamental. A secure mineral title is essential, but

sustainable access to the land requires compliance with the statutory framework governing

consent, revocation, surface rent, compensation, environmental protection and community

relations. For Nigeria, the greater challenge is ensuring that these rules are applied consistently

by Federal and State institutions. Greater coordination between the Mining Cadastre Office,

State authorities, MIREMCO and affected landowners would improve legal certainty, reduce

disputes and strengthen investor confidence. Ultimately, a successful mining regime must achieve more than the extraction of minerals. It must reconcile resource development with security of investment, protection of legitimate land

interests and the social legitimacy of mining operations. Section 22 provides the starting point

for that balance, but its success depends upon how the priority it creates is implemented in

practice.