Cross River Assembly Moves to Ban Housing Agents Across the State Sparks Public Outrage and Heated Debate

The Cross River State House of Assembly has ignited a wave of public reaction after opening deliberations on a new proposal seeking to ban housing agents across Calabar and other parts of the state. The controversial motion, which was introduced on the floor of the House earlier this week, has already stirred intense discussions among residents, landlords, and property managers, many of whom fear that such a move could destabilize the real estate market and worsen the already difficult housing situation in the state capital.

According to reports from the Assembly complex, the proposal seeks to prohibit the activities of middlemen—commonly referred to as housing or property agents—who help connect prospective tenants with landlords for a commission. Lawmakers supporting the bill claim that many agents have become exploitative, charging outrageous inspection and agency fees that place additional burdens on residents, particularly students and low-income earners. The motion, they say, is meant to protect citizens from sharp practices and restore sanity to the rental market in Calabar and beyond.

Speaking during the deliberation, one of the sponsors of the motion, a member representing Calabar South Constituency, argued that the increasing rate of exploitation by unregistered and self-styled housing agents has made renting a house in Cross River “a nightmare for ordinary citizens.” He pointed out that tenants are often forced to pay multiple inspection fees for houses that are either already taken, uninhabitable, or misrepresented. “It is time we take decisive action against these unregulated agents who take advantage of our people under the guise of helping them find accommodation,” he declared, to the nods of several lawmakers in the chamber.

However, the proposal has quickly become one of the most divisive issues in recent legislative discussions. While some lawmakers insist that banning agents outright is too extreme and could create a vacuum in the property sector, others argue that stricter regulation rather than a total ban would be a more practical approach. “We cannot throw away the baby with the bathwater,” one lawmaker reportedly said, cautioning against a move that could “cripple the state’s housing market and lead to chaos between landlords and tenants.”

The news of the proposed ban has spread rapidly across Calabar, sparking mixed reactions among the city’s residents. For many tenants, especially students of the University of Calabar and the Cross River University of Technology, the idea of eliminating agents sounds like long-awaited relief. “Agents have been a big problem for us,” said a student who lives in the Atimbo area. “You’ll pay ₦3,000 or ₦5,000 just to see a house, and after visiting four or five houses, your money is gone, yet you still don’t get a place. Some agents even disappear with people’s money. Maybe this new law will help.”

But for others, especially those who work within the housing and property sector, the proposed ban could have devastating consequences. Dozens of people across Calabar earn their living as independent housing agents, connecting landlords with tenants in an informal but deeply entrenched system. If the ban becomes law, many of these individuals could lose their primary source of income, and landlords could find it harder to reach potential tenants. “We are not criminals; we are just trying to make a living,” said one property agent who operates around Marian Road. “If they ban us, how will people find houses? Landlords don’t have time to deal with tenants directly, and tenants don’t know where to look without us.”

Experts in the real estate industry have also weighed in on the matter, warning that an outright ban could lead to unintended consequences. Real estate consultant, Mr. Emmanuel Orok, described the move as “hasty and unrealistic,” noting that while there are indeed bad eggs among agents, the solution lies in regulation and professionalization, not prohibition. He proposed the creation of a state registry for property agents, with licensing requirements and penalties for malpractice. “If the government introduces a proper licensing system, it can weed out fraudsters while protecting legitimate practitioners,” he said. “A total ban would only push the business underground and make it more difficult to control.”

Meanwhile, social media platforms have become flooded with opinions on the issue, with many Cross River residents taking to Facebook and X (formerly Twitter) to express their thoughts. While some praised the Assembly for taking action against what they describe as “housing racketeering,” others criticized the lawmakers for not addressing the root cause of the housing crisis—poor infrastructure, high rent costs, and lack of affordable housing development. One user wrote, “Banning agents won’t solve the housing problem. The issue is that landlords keep increasing rent and the government is doing nothing about that.” Another user commented, “The agents are just middlemen. If you remove them, tenants will still suffer because the houses are few and expensive.”

The Cross River State House of Assembly has not yet reached a final decision on the matter. Sources within the Assembly hint that the proposal may go through further review, with a committee expected to be set up to study its implications before any official law is passed. Some lawmakers have also suggested organizing public hearings to allow stakeholders—including landlords, agents, and tenants—to share their perspectives. This approach, they say, would help ensure that any law passed is balanced and in the interest of all parties.

As the debate continues, tension appears to be growing among local housing agents, many of whom have already begun mobilizing to resist what they describe as a “threat to their livelihood.” Reports indicate that several groups of agents in Calabar are planning to stage peaceful demonstrations to call the government’s attention to their plight and demand inclusion in future policy discussions. “We want to work with the government, not against it,” one of the coordinators told reporters. “But banning us is not the answer. Regulate us, train us, but don’t destroy our source of income.”

The situation has also drawn attention from human rights and consumer protection advocates, some of whom have expressed cautious support for the idea of reforming the housing sector but warned against policies that could lead to mass unemployment. “The housing market in Cross River is already fragile,” said a spokesperson for a Calabar-based civil rights organization. “A sudden ban could trigger more problems than it solves, especially when many agents are breadwinners for their families. What we need is transparency, not prohibition.”

As the Cross River State Assembly prepares to resume deliberations next week, all eyes remain on the outcome of the debate that could reshape how housing transactions are conducted across the state. Whether the lawmakers will choose to enforce a total ban, modify the proposal to allow for regulation, or discard it altogether remains to be seen. But one thing is certain—the proposal has opened a Pandora’s box of economic, social, and ethical questions that go beyond Calabar, touching on the broader challenge of how to balance fairness, regulation, and livelihood in Nigeria’s complex housing market.