Cover StoryDevelopmentProfileSpecial Report

Governor AbdulRazaq’s Land Reform Agenda: How KWGIS Is Changing the Narrative

3 Mins read

 

By Rowland Olonishuwa

For many years, land administration in several parts of Nigeria was associated with delays, uncertainty, missing files, middlemen interference, and cumbersome documentation processes. Citizens seeking land titles or Certificates of Occupancy frequently encountered frustrating experiences that undermined confidence in government systems.

In Kwara State, however, a new direction is emerging through the establishment and strengthening of the Kwara State Geographic Information Service (KWGIS) under the visionary leadership of Governor AbdulRahman AbdulRazaq.

Recognising that effective land administration is fundamental to economic growth, urban development, investment confidence, and social stability, the Governor initiated reforms aimed at modernising the sector and transforming it into a transparent, efficient, and citizen-focused system.

Today, KWGIS stands as one of the clearest examples of institutional reform in Kwara State.

KWGIS is driving digital transformation

At the centre of this transformation is the Executive Chairman of KWGIS, ESV Sulyman Babatunde AbdulKareem, and his management team. Together, they have worked tirelessly to translate the Governor’s vision into measurable results.

Through strategic planning, innovation, and the deployment of modern technology, the agency has transitioned from largely analogue operations to a digital-driven system designed to simplify land administration for Kwarans.

One of the agency’s most significant achievements is the digitalisation of land records and processes. Before these reforms, retrieving files could take days, weeks, or even months. In some cases, files proved difficult to trace, while many citizens depended on unofficial intermediaries to navigate the system.

Today, however, the situation has changed considerably. With the introduction of digital file management, automated workflows, and electronic billing systems, land documentation processes have become faster, more transparent, and easier to track.

As a result, applicants can now monitor the progress of their files with greater clarity, while digital records help reduce the risks associated with file loss, manipulation, and unnecessary delays.

And restoring public confidence

This transformation goes beyond technology. More importantly, it is about restoring public confidence in land administration.

The Governor’s vision for KWGIS was never limited to computers and software. Rather, the objective was to build an institution where citizens feel respected, protected, and properly served. It was about creating a system where professionalism replaces uncertainty and where landowners can access government services without fear or exploitation.

Gradually, that vision is becoming a reality.

Under the current leadership of KWGIS, the agency has strengthened service delivery standards, improved customer engagement, enhanced transparency in billing, and introduced systems that reduce opportunities for abuse.

Consequently, Kwarans are beginning to experience a more organised, accountable, and responsive land administration process.

Supporting economic growth and investment

The benefits of these reforms extend far beyond documentation.
A functional land administration system creates economic opportunities for individuals and businesses alike. When land titles are secure and properly documented, property owners can invest confidently in development. They can access mortgages, secure loans, build homes, establish businesses, and contribute more actively to the economy.

Likewise, transparent land administration systems inspire investor confidence. Investors are more willing to commit resources to environments where land ownership records are reliable, accessible, and professionally managed.

For this reason, the reforms within KWGIS are critical to the broader economic future of Kwara State.

Strengthening urban development

The reforms are also supporting physical planning and urban development.

Through modern mapping systems, advanced survey technologies, and improved coordination among technical departments, the state is laying stronger foundations for smart city initiatives, urban renewal programmes, and strategic development projects.

As these systems continue to evolve, they will play an increasingly important role in shaping a more organised and sustainable urban future for Kwara State.

The leadership, teamwork and institutional commitment
Importantly, the achievements recorded by KWGIS did not happen by accident. Instead, they are the product of deliberate leadership, teamwork, and institutional commitment.

The Executive Chairman, alongside directors, technical staff, and civil servants within the agency, has embraced the responsibility of ensuring that the Governor’s vision is not only implemented but also sustained.

Furthermore, the emphasis on staff training and institutional participation has fostered a stronger sense of ownership across the organisation. Rather than excluding civil servants from the reform process, the administration ensured they received the training and support needed to operate effectively within the new digital environment.

Without doubt, this approach has strengthened both the sustainability and effectiveness of the reforms.

And a foundation for the future

For Kwarans, these achievements are worth celebrating. A transparent and efficient land administration system is not a luxury; it is a critical foundation for development. It protects citizens, encourages investment, improves government efficiency, and creates opportunities for future growth.

Indeed, the transformation taking place at KWGIS demonstrates what is possible when visionary leadership is combined with professionalism, innovation, and a genuine commitment to public service.

As the reforms continue to deepen, one fact is becoming increasingly clear: KWGIS is not merely processing land documents. The agency is helping to build a modern Kwara State where governance works better for the people, development is better planned, and citizens can participate more confidently in the state’s economic future.

That is a vision worth supporting. For many Kwarans, it is already becoming a reality.

Olonishuwa is the Press Secretary, Kwara State Geographic Information Service (KWGIS).

   

About author
Time Nigeria is a modern and general interest Magazine with its Headquarters in Abuja. The Magazine has a remarkable difference in editorial philosophy and goals, it adheres strictly to the ethics of Journalism by using the finest ethos of the profession to promote peace among citizens; identifying and harnessing the nation’s vast resources; celebrating achievements of government agencies, individuals, groups and corporate organizations and above all, repositioning Nigeria for the needed growth and development. Time Nigeria gives emphasis to places and issues that have not been given adequate attention by others. The Magazine is national in outlook and is currently being read and patronized both in print and on our vibrant and active online platform (www.timenigeria.com).
Articles
Related posts
All The NewsCover StoryNewsPolitics

Musa Tsoken Congratulates Kalu on Daily Times’ Lawmaker of the Year Award

1 Mins read
The National Coordinator of the Asiwaju Again Renewed Hope Support Initiative 2027 and National President of the APC Initiative for Good Governance…
Abuja FileDevelopmentEconomyEnergyFinanceInside LagosOpinionPerspective

The Missing Middle of Infrastructure Finance: Why Capital Still Fails to Become Infrastructure

6 Mins read
  By Chidi Nwafor  In October 2023, a Gulf sovereign wealth fund quietly closed a $2 billion allocation to global infrastructure, earmarked in part for emerging-market energy and transport assets. The announcement drew the usual applause: another sign, commentators said, that institutional capital was finally waking up to the infrastructure opportunity in the Global South. Eighteen months later, less than a tenth of that allocation had actually left the fund’s balance sheet. Not because the mandate had changed. Not because the fund had lost appetite. According to two people familiar with the portfolio, the constraint was simpler and more uncomfortable: there were not enough investable projects to put the money into. This is not a story about a reluctant investor. It is a story about capital that wants to move, cannot find enough places willing and able to receive it in a form it can underwrite, and quietly waits instead. Multiply that fund by the hundreds of pension schemes, sovereign wealth vehicles, commercial banks and infrastructure funds now carrying dedicated allocations for emerging-market infrastructure, and a pattern emerges that rarely makes it into a headline: the world is not short of capital for infrastructure. It has capital in historic abundance, sitting adjacent to a historic infrastructure gap, unable to cross the distance between the two. The Comfortable Explanation  The explanation on offer at every major infrastructure summit is a familiar one. Global infrastructure investment needs run into the tens of trillions of dollars over the coming decade; committed capital falls well short; therefore, the problem is one of insufficient funding, and the solution is more of it: more pledges, more blended-finance facilities, more climate funds, more multilateral capital increases. It is a comfortable explanation because it assigns responsibility clearly to governments who under-fund, institutions who under-commit, and it offers a clean remedy: raise more. It is also, on close inspection, not what the evidence shows. Pension funds globally hold trillions in assets under management with explicit infrastructure allocations that remain structurally underweight, not because trustees have rejected the asset class but because deal flow meeting their risk and governance thresholds has not materialised at the pace their mandates assume. Sovereign wealth funds report the same pattern. Commercial banks with dedicated project finance desks describe pipelines that look full at the term-sheet stage and thin dramatically by financial close. Development finance institutions, whose entire purpose is to absorb risk that commercial capital will not, routinely report that their binding constraint is not capital adequacy but the volume of bankable transactions their teams can originate and structure in a given year. None of this fits the scarcity narrative. All of it fits a different one. Availability Is Not Deployability  Capital availability and capital deployability are not the same condition, and the conflation of the two is doing real damage to how the world thinks about the infrastructure gap. Availability asks whether money exists somewhere with a mandate that could, in principle, be pointed at infrastructure. Deployability asks something much narrower and much harder: whether a specific project, at a specific moment, has been engineered, structured, documented and de-risked to the point where an investment committee can approve it without exception. The first condition is met, overwhelmingly, across nearly every category of capital that matters to infrastructure. The second is met by only a small fraction of the projects competing for it. The result is a market that looks, from the outside, like a financing gap, and functions, from the inside, like a conversion problem: an abundance of capital on one side, an abundance of infrastructure need on the other, and an underbuilt set of mechanisms in between capable of turning one into the other at any meaningful scale. Where the Conversion Breaks  The break does not happen at the ends of the process. It happens in the middle, in the unglamorous sequence of work that turns a plausible concept into an instrument a fiduciary can sign. A promising transmission project needs a feasibility study rigorous enough to survive institutional scrutiny rather than optimistic enough to attract early interest. It needs offtake arrangements that hold up under real counterparty and currency risk, not the counterparty risk assumed in a base case. It needs environmental and social documentation calibrated to the standards of the institutions being asked to fund it, not the standards of the jurisdiction hosting it. It needs a legal and commercial structure that allocates risk in ways a commercial lender, not only a development financier, will accept. It needs a sponsor capable of executing what has been proposed, not merely capable of proposing it. Each of these is ordinary project finance discipline. None of it is exotic, and in mature infrastructure markets it happens as a matter of course, absorbed into systems built over decades: specialist advisers, standard-form contracts, established procurement norms, deep pools of transaction expertise. What is missing in the markets where the infrastructure gap is largest is not the standard itself but the machinery that meets it. Projects arrive at investment committees with ambition intact and preparation incomplete, and that gap is treated, again and again, as an individual project’s failure rather than what it actually is: a structural absence in the systems responsible for producing investable transactions at scale. The Missing Middle  This is the Missing Middle of Infrastructure Finance: the institutional architecture that sits between capital that wants to move and infrastructure that needs building, and whose incompleteness explains far more of the global infrastructure gap than any shortfall in committed funds. It consists of project preparation facilities able to fund feasibility and structuring work before commercial viability has been proven. Transaction advisers capable of building deals that satisfy development mandates and commercial return thresholds at once, rather than treating the two as separate constituencies to be managed sequentially. Risk-sharing and guarantee instruments that convert political, regulatory and currency risk into something a commercial balance sheet can underwrite. Aggregation platforms that bundle smaller, individually sub-scale projects into portfolios large enough to justify institutional transaction costs. Standardised documentation that reduces the bespoke legal cost of every new deal. And coordination across ministries, regulators and financiers robust enough that a technically sound project does not die in bureaucratic sequencing after the money has already been found. None of these are new ideas in isolation. What is missing is their assembly into a coherent system, deliberately funded and institutionally accountable, rather than scattered across donor-funded pilots that end when the grant does. The African Dimension  Africa makes this dynamic unusually visible, and consequently offers an unusually clear opportunity to correct it. The continent’s infrastructure financing need, by any measure, is vast. Less understood is that the shortfall is disproportionately one of preparation rather than capital. Nigerian gas-to-power, off-grid solar and mini-grid developers have each demonstrated that individual projects can clear the bankability bar; what has not emerged is systemic pipeline scale, a steady stream of comparably prepared projects large enough to absorb the capital already circling the sector. The pattern repeats, with local variation, from grid infrastructure in East Africa to transport corridors in West Africa. Interested capital is rarely the scarce input. Investment-ready projects are. The Global Comparison  Mature markets solved this problem gradually and mostly invisibly, through decades of institution-building that predates the current infrastructure conversation: specialist project finance units inside banks, standardised PPP frameworks, established regulatory playbooks, deep benches of transaction lawyers and engineers who move between deals rather than between one-off assignments. Emerging and frontier markets are not being asked to meet a lower standard. They are being asked to meet the same standard without having built the same machinery, and then being told, when deals fail to close, that the problem is insufficient funding….
Cover StoryNewsSports

Union Bank, AIICO Multishield, Checkers Custard, Others Back 5th Cycling Lagos

2 Mins read
Union Bank of Nigeria Plc, AIICO Multishield, Checkers Custard and other corporate organisations have thrown their weight behind the 5th Cycling Lagos,…
Stay on the loop!

Subscribe to our latest news.

Leave a Reply

WP2Social Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com