Author: MIL-OSI Publisher

Source: The Conversation – Africa – By Joy Oyiza Obadoba, PhD Candidate, Sustainable Urbanisation, University of Lagos

Abuja, Nigeria’s federal capital city, has witnessed remarkable urban growth since its development in the 1980s. The city’s population has increased from 776,298 in 2006 to an estimated 2,057,985 in 2026.

A serious housing crisis has developed: high rents and developments focused on luxury force lower income earners into peripheral settlements.

Over the decades the city’s authorities have taken steps to address the challenge. They have followed national housing policies and encouraged private sector investments, yet there are still gaps in addressing housing challenges in Abuja. Abuja has a housing deficit of over 1.7 million units.

My doctoral thesis focused on access to housing for low-income earners in one of the six councils that make up Nigeria’s Federal Capital Territory.

In a recent paper I looked at how state-led policies in Abuja shape access to housing for low earners. I argue that state-led housing intended to correct market failure reinforces inequality. It puts high-income earners first and neglects the majority in society.

My research drew on qualitative and quantitative data, including policy document reviews, stakeholder interviews and household surveys.

I identified four key factors that contribute to the city’s housing crisis:

• poor monitoring of current policies

• state-led programmes that privilege middle and upper-income groups

• a lack of affordable financing

• planning that fails to account for cultural preferences when designing houses.

---

Read more: Africa needs 50 million new homes, but building is bad for the environment: how to finance ‘green’ solutions

---

The housing crisis in Abuja

The demand for housing in Abuja has increased due to rapid urbanisation and population growth. As Nigeria’s political and administrative hub, Abuja attracts thousands of migrants who perceive the city as safer than other parts of the country.

Its centrality also attracts unemployed migrants searching for jobs, economic opportunities and political connections.

But the supply of affordable housing has not kept pace with demand.

National housing policies such as the National Housing Fund and various affordable housing initiatives have aimed to alleviate the problem, but without success.

There are a number of reasons for this.

Monitoring and enforcement

My research found that there’s a lack of monitoring and enforcement of housing development policy. Affordable housing projects awarded by the Mass Housing Department to developers are not regularly monitored by the agency.

This has resulted in projects that benefit only the upper-income groups, particularly politicians, people in business, and senior government officials. Low income earners are systematically excluded.

High-end developments and gentrification

Government officials focus on high-end housing developments through designs, zoning and architectural plans.

Over 48.3% of Abuja residents are poor, according to the 2022 multidimensional poverty index. While some housing policies are designed as affordable and inclusive housing, they fail to accommodate low-income earners.

For example, Renewed Hope City, located in Karsana, Abuja, provides 3,112 housing units but allocates only 992 one- to two-bedroom units to low-income groups.

Added to this is the gentrification of areas initially occupied by low-income communities. Informal settlements, the only affordable option for many, are demolished. Over 30,000 settlements were flattened between 2024 and 2026 to make way for upscale developments.

---

Read more: How hot is your home? Nigerian study explores comfort levels in buildings

---

Access to affordable financing

The mortgage (home loan) system in Nigeria is biased against low-income earners. Despite the Federal Mortgage Bank adopting interest rates between 6% and 10%, commercial banks offer between 18% and 24%. Some people’s wages are not adequate to apply for a home loan. They do not have the money for a deposit or they can’t afford the monthly deduction.

Buying a luxury apartment requires an initial deposit of 10%, which far exceeds the wage of the average Nigerian worker, and there are strict criteria to qualify for home loans.

Low-income individuals often lack formal employment records or collateral. Where they are formally employed, many do not have sufficient savings in their housing insurance policy, making them ineligible for housing loans.

One of the respondents in my study said:

Many of us consider ourselves low-income earners in Abuja. Look at me, an average director who earns the sum of 400,000 naira, yet I must pay an annual rent of over 3 million per year. I will also pay for feeding, medical bills, and tuition fees for the children. Tell me, is my salary commensurate with the living expenses in the city?

The missing cultural dimension

Abuja’s housing development also neglects cultural dimensions. Housing is more than just shelter; it meets families’ social, cultural and psychological needs.

In Abuja, the average resident maintains connections with extended family. But urban planners overlook this. They design homes for nuclear families, disregarding larger households’ needs. Resident have to adapt by overcrowding studio apartments or sharing spaces to reduce costs.

Architects choose western-style designs over indigenous aesthetics and environmental considerations.

My view is that to improve affordability and sustainability, developers must use local materials, climate-sensitive designs and cultural elements that suit residents’ lifestyles.

---

Read more: Better-designed homes could cut three major child diseases by up to 44% – Tanzania trial

---

Addressing the gaps

My findings suggest a number of policy interventions are required.

Firstly, the government must help make housing more affordable by providing subsidies and revising mortgage systems.

Secondly, offering low-interest housing loans and rent-to-own schemes would help renters make the move to home ownership.

Thirdly, government should regulate private developers by granting tax incentives, providing land access, and closely monitoring projects to ensure they benefit the target demographic.

Fourth, instead of demolishing informal settlements, authorities should upgrade them. They should improve infrastructure, grant legal recognition, and provide access to essential services.

Fifth, urban planners and architects must incorporate cultural dimensions in housing designs by creating spaces for extended families, fostering communal areas, and using traditional materials.

Finally, civil society organisations should hold policymakers accountable and amplify the voices of low-income earners.

By meeting the needs of low-income earners and respecting the cultural context of housing, Abuja can progress towards a housing system that works for all its residents.

– Abuja’s housing crisis: why affordable homes stay out of reach for low paid workers
– https://theconversation.com/abujas-housing-crisis-why-affordable-homes-stay-out-of-reach-for-low-paid-workers-260435

Source: The Conversation – Africa – By Kerstin Bree Carlson, Associate Professor International Law, Roskilde University

The Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) filed a lawsuit against Rwanda at the International Court of Justice at the end of June 2026. The 60-page complaint alleges acts of genocide and other atrocity crimes by Rwandan forces and their intermediaries dating from 1996 to the present day.

The DRC has twice before brought similar cases against Rwanda at this court. Both failed on questions of jurisdiction. So, what explains yet another case against Rwanda? Kerstin Bree Carlson, a scholar of international justice and author of a book on international law in Africa, examines this history and what’s behind the DRC’s confidence in its latest push.

What did the DRC’s previous cases involve?

The DRC has twice tried to bring Rwanda before the International Court of Justice in relation to violence carried out or backed by Rwanda on its soil. It was unsuccessful both times.

In 1999, the DRC brought claims against Rwanda, Burundi and Uganda before the court over the armed invasion of its territory. It sought reparations for armed aggression and intentional acts of destruction and looting.

It later dropped its claims against Rwanda and Burundi because neither country had consented to the court’s jurisdiction.

The case against Uganda went ahead, and in 2005 the court ruled in the DRC’s favour. It found that Uganda was responsible for acts of violence in the country. In 2022, the court ordered Uganda to pay US$325 million in reparations, marking a significant victory for the DRC. Kampala paid the first instalment of US$65 million that year.

In 2002, the DRC resubmitted claims against Rwanda.

The DRC invoked eight international treaties, including the Genocide Convention. This is a UN treaty that entered into force in 1951 and establishes genocide as an international crime.

The International Court of Justice dismissed the DRC’s case on jurisdictional grounds, which drew criticism. The court said it lacked the authority to hear the dispute because Rwanda had entered a “reservation” when it joined the Genocide Convention, rejecting the court’s jurisdiction under the treaty. In the 2006 ruling, a majority of International Court of Justice judges recognised the validity of this reservation.

What has happened in the past 20 years that might change the outcome?

First, in 2008 Rwanda withdrew its reservation to International Court of Justice jurisdiction under the Genocide Convention and the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination (which came into force in 1969). That means that the jurisdictional hurdle relating to Rwanda’s consent is resolved.

The DRC has invoked both these treaties in its current submission to the court.

Second, in 2008 Rwanda became a party to the Convention Against Torture (which came into force in 1987). Claims made under this UN treaty do not need to meet the same rigorous “intent” standard that genocide claims do. Further, the court’s jurisprudence is well established under the torture convention. For example, claims under this treaty played a critical role in efforts to bring Chad’s former president Hissène Habré to justice.

The DRC has invoked this history in its submission.

Third, international law has evolved. Recent cases like The Gambia’s suit againt Myanmar (2019) and South Africa’s case against Israel (2023) have expanded the Genocide Convention’s reach.

Together, these factors suggest that the DRC’s third attempt may have a stronger chance of clearing the jurisdictional hurdle. However, whether this would eventually lead to a judgment against Rwanda is much harder to predict.

Why has the DRC turned to international law?

International law, the law of nations, creates all nations as equals. The International Court of Justice is the oldest, most established global arbiter of disputes between them.

There are two principles of international law that play out in this case.

First, states are generally bound only by obligations they have explicitly accepted. This includes agreeing to the jurisdiction of the court. Second, international courts have no police force or other means of enforcing their judgments. It is up to states themselves to comply with court rulings. This compliance includes a duty on other states not to recognise as lawful situations created through serious breaches of international law.

Although the court cannot compel states to act, its opinions matter. They represent the most authoritative statements of international legal norms. In other words, International Court of Justice judgments represent the clearest statements we have regarding how international legal principles apply in practice.

Recognising international law’s persuasive power is key to understanding why the DRC has repeatedly turned to the International Court of Justice and other international courts to seek rulings against Rwanda and its proxies. These include the International Criminal Court and the African Court on Human and People’s Rights. International lawfare represents a principled battle for recognition and legitimacy.

Why does the case matter?

The DRC’s creative legal attempts to bring Rwanda to justice in relation to its engagement in and support of armed conflict in the DRC over the past several decades are efforts to invalidate violent incursions on its soil. It also seeks to reassert its sovereignty by having Rwandan-backed violence recognised as illegal by international law’s apex court.

As I have argued before and in my book examining international law in Africa, the power of international law resides in states’ agreements to use it in place of violent conflagration, and to be bound by it.

Rwanda challenges these standards in both regards. Credible allegations of Rwandan-backed massacres in the DRC date from 1996 through to the present day. Despite being the recipient of significant international legal investment, Rwanda resists participating as a good international citizen. So far, neither Rwanda nor its allies are addressing or redressing its behaviour.

By contrast, the DRC is expanding international law’s promise and potential by applying it as intended. International law derives its power chiefly from the expectations it creates.

The DRC is not blameless in the three decades of violence its submission describes. But by framing that violence through the lens of international law, the country helps legitimise alternatives to violence.

– DRC has taken Rwanda to the world court over genocide again. A law scholar explains what’s different this time
– https://theconversation.com/drc-has-taken-rwanda-to-the-world-court-over-genocide-again-a-law-scholar-explains-whats-different-this-time-286963