MOFI’s Mortgage Fund: Can Government Finance Finally Bridge Nigeria’sHousing Gap?

ESV NYEBE JOSEPH AUDU

Nigeria’s chronic housing deficit commonly estimated in the tens of millions is not a problem
that yields to slogans or single-policy fixes. It requires sustained, patient mobilization of finance,
land, and technical capacity. So, when the Ministry of Finance Incorporated (MOFI) stepped into
the housing space with bold capital commitments earlier this year, it was both welcome and
overdue. The questions now are simple and pointed: will the money translate into homes for
Nigerians who need them most, and will the architecture of these interventions fix the deeper
market failures that have long made housing unaffordable?

MOFI’s Real Estate Investment Fund (MREIF) has become the headline intervention. The
vehicle launched in multiple series with government subscription running into the tens and
hundreds of billions of naira is explicitly designed to unlock private capital for housing projects
and lower the cost of mortgage finance for eligible Nigerians. MOFI’s web statements and fund
pages describe a phased subscription (Series 1 and Series 2 offerings) aimed at mobilizing
institutional capital to the sector.

This approach signals an important shift; the Federal Government is treating housing not just as
a welfare obligation but as an investible asset class that must attract long-term finance. That
matters, because one of Nigeria’s persistent constraints has been a mismatch between short-term,
expensive credit and the multi-decade nature of housing finance. The Federal Mortgage Bank of
Nigeria (FMBN) remains central to delivering mortgage products from National Housing Fund
loans to cooperative, and estate development loans and recent policy pronouncements emphasize
innovative, lower-cost mortgage instruments as the pathway to ownership.

However, capital-arrangement is only half the battle. The Federal Government has layered
parallel efforts from the Renewed Hope housing projects to targeted schemes for civil servants
(like FISH) intended to get houses built and distributed across states. The housing ministry has
publicly pushed for increased budgetary prioritization and the completion of ongoing projects,
acknowledging high building costs and land obstacles as persistent barriers to addressing the
Nigerian housing challenges

Here is where cautious optimism must give way to realism. Capital injected into funds or banks
does not automatically lower the price of serviced land, fix title bottlenecks, or create the supplychain efficiencies that reduce construction costs. In many Nigerian cities, regulatory delays, fragmented land administration, and infrastructure deficits mean that well-financed developers
still struggle to deliver affordable units at scale. Moreover, funds that are attractive to institutional
investors often target middle income segments first leaving the lowest-income households still
dependent on incremental, informal housing solutions.

That does not make MOFI’s move irrelevant. It can be catalytic if the fund’s governance and
product design prioritize affordability alongside returns. For instance, linking MREIF resources
to long-term, fixed-rate mortgages (and ensuring those mortgages reach pensioners, low- and
middle-income workers, and cooperative groups) would help. Equally important is insisting that
public capital be used to de-risk projects in locations with secure land titles and access to
infrastructure, rather than subsidizing expensive urban plots.

There are encouraging signs: commentators and industry bodies hailed the N250 billion mortgage
fund announcement as a potential game-changer when it was unveiled, and the government
communications have pointed to single-digit mortgage products and new mortgage reforms
designed to expand access.

Yet the proof will be in measurable outcomes in the number of completed units delivered at
affordable price points, mortgages disbursed to target groups, and reduction in the overall deficit
over a multi-year horizon.

If the government sustains political will and pairs financial innovation with land reform,
infrastructure delivery, and support for local builders and materials industries, the current wave
of interventions could mark a turning point. If, however, these funds are treated as off-budget
headline figures without transparent allocation and effective pipeline development, the result will
be another election-cycle promise that fails to move the needle for ordinary Nigerians.

MOFI’s intervention is a necessary and welcome investment of financial firepower in housing.
But money must be matched with disciplined policymaking and accountable delivery if Nigerians
are to see real roofs over their heads not just press releases about funds that sound good on paper.
The country’s housing challenge will be solved only when finance, land, and the state’s capacity
to deliver converge in concrete, measurable results.

Nyebe, a practicing Estate Surveyor and Valuer, wrote from Abuja
joeaudu@gmail.com