Today, Victoria Island is one of Nigeria’s most recognisable commercial districts, known for luxury properties, corporate headquarters, hotels and expensive real estate. Yet before its present identity took hold, the land had a different history. It was associated with the Oniru family and the community of Iru Town, whose connection to the area preceded the development of the modern district.
The transformation raises questions that go beyond property and urban planning. What happened when land associated with the Oniru family was acquired in 1948? What became of the people whose homes and livelihoods were connected to it? And why did an area with an established local identity come to be known as Victoria Island, a name associated with a British queen?
These questions matter because the development of a place is not only about what is built on its land. It is also about who controlled that land, whose lives were disrupted, and whose history remained visible after the transformation.
EXPLORE NOW: Biographies & Cultural Icons of Nigeria
Iru Town Before Victoria Island
Before Victoria Island became a centre of commerce, the land formed part of a landscape shaped by traditional ownership, local settlements and livelihoods connected to the surrounding waterways. The Oniru family held traditional land claims in the area, while local people lived and worked within the wider environment.
Iru Town was part of this earlier history. Its identity was connected to the people and traditional institutions of the area, rather than to the corporate offices and high-rise buildings that define Victoria Island today.
The importance of this history lies in the fact that the land was not an empty space. People had relationships with it, and its value could not be measured only in money. Homes, community ties, places of worship and familiar surroundings all contributed to the meaning of the area for those who lived there.
When land with an established community history is acquired for a new development, the change affects more than ownership on paper. It can alter the relationship between people and their surroundings, particularly when residents have little influence over the plans being made for their future.
Understanding the transformation of Iru Town therefore requires attention to both the land itself and the people whose lives were connected to it.
The Colonial Background to the 1948 Acquisition
British colonial authority in Lagos had been established through a history of military intervention and political control. In 1851, British forces bombarded Lagos amid a struggle over the Lagos throne and British commercial and political interests. Lagos was formally annexed by Britain in 1861.
This history provides the wider context for understanding the authority exercised by colonial institutions over land and urban development. By 1948, decisions about the expansion and planning of Lagos were being made within a colonial administrative system.
The acquisition associated with Iru Town did not occur in isolation from that system. It formed part of a period in which land was increasingly being organised for planned urban expansion, while the interests of established communities had to contend with the priorities of government development agencies.
1948: The Acquisition of Oniru Family Land
In 1948, the Lagos Executive Development Board acquired land associated with the Oniru family for the expansion of Lagos towards what became modern Victoria Island.
A published academic study by Taibat Lawanson, Damilola Odekunle and Isaac Olawale Albert records that the Board purchased part of the land described in its historical timeline as then Maroko land for £250,000. The study also reports £150,000 in compensation for displaced fishermen, many of whom relocated to the area of present-day Oniru Estate.
These figures provide an important record of the transaction and its human consequences. They also raise questions about the distinction between the compensation paid for land and the compensation intended for residents whose lives were affected by the acquisition.
The purchase price recorded for the land does not tell the entire story of what happened to the people connected to it. Nor does the reported compensation establish that every affected household was adequately compensated or that residents had a meaningful choice about leaving.
Accounts of the acquisition have also referred to the destruction of homes and traditional shrines. Such losses are significant because they involve more than physical structures. Homes provide security and continuity, while shrines and other places of cultural or spiritual importance may carry the history and identity of a community.
The full circumstances of each reported loss deserve to be understood through historical records and the experiences of affected families. What must not be overlooked is the central question raised by the acquisition: how were the interests of the people connected to the land weighed against the plans for its future?
The Human Cost of Changing the Land
For residents whose lives depended on their immediate surroundings, relocation could mean losing more than a house. Fishermen could lose access to familiar fishing grounds. Families could be separated from established neighbours, while people who depended on local trading networks could find themselves having to rebuild their livelihoods elsewhere.
A new settlement might offer a place to live, but that did not automatically restore what had been lost. Familiar routes, community relationships, cultural practices and a sense of belonging could not simply be transferred with a change of address.
The academic account of the 1948 acquisition connects the displacement of fishermen with relocation to the area now associated with Oniru Estate. Later accounts also connect displacement in the wider area with Maroko. These locations and movements must be distinguished carefully because Maroko had its own history and later experienced separate episodes of eviction.
In particular, the large-scale demolition of Maroko in July 1990 was a separate event, decades after the 1948 acquisition. It displaced a large population and became one of the most consequential forced evictions in Lagos’s history. It should not be confused with the earlier acquisition or treated as though all the affected residents belonged to one community or were moved in a single operation.
The distinction does not diminish the hardship associated with either episode. Instead, it allows the history of each community and each displacement to be told more accurately.
From Acquired Land to a New Urban District
The acquisition of land in 1948 was an important step in the development of modern Victoria Island, but the physical transformation took place over time.
The area included low-lying and swampy terrain that required surveying, drainage and reclamation before extensive construction could take place. Historical accounts of Lagos’s development record that a preliminary survey for Victoria Island was completed in 1958, followed by reclamation work carried out in phases.
Roads, buildings and commercial facilities gradually reshaped the landscape. In later decades, Victoria Island became an important destination for businesses, investors and residents seeking access to the growing commercial economy of Lagos.
The resulting district is now widely associated with wealth and economic opportunity. Yet the value attached to the land today should not obscure the circumstances in which its development began.
The transformation created a new urban environment, but it also raises questions about the people whose previous connection to the area was disrupted. The skyline tells the story of construction. It does not, by itself, tell the story of the residents who left, the livelihoods that changed or the memories that remained with their families.
Why Was It Named Victoria Island?
One of the most striking aspects of the area’s transformation is its name. Victoria Island is widely understood to have been named after Queen Victoria, the British monarch whose reign became closely associated with the expansion of the British Empire.
Queen Victoria never visited Lagos. Yet her name became attached to a district whose earlier history was connected to Iru Town and the Oniru family.
This raises a question that deserves serious historical attention: why did the name Victoria Island become established instead of retaining the name associated with the original community?
Place names are not merely labels used to find an address. They can preserve a community’s history, recognise a person or institution, or reflect the power of those who determine how a place will be represented. A change in a place’s name can therefore change the way its past is remembered.
The association between Victoria Island and Queen Victoria is widely reported, but the precise administrative decision behind the naming, including who selected the name and when it was formally adopted, requires a documentary record. Without that evidence, the exact motive for the decision should not be assumed.
Nevertheless, the question remains important. When a place associated with an established local community becomes known by a colonial name, it is reasonable to ask whose identity is made prominent and whose history becomes less visible.
The continued use of the name Victoria Island does not mean that the history of Iru Town must disappear from public memory. Understanding that earlier history allows the modern district to be seen as more than a collection of valuable properties. It reconnects the present landscape with the people and traditions that preceded it.
Development, Memory and the People Who Came Before
Victoria Island’s commercial success is visible in its buildings, businesses and property market. The history behind its development is less visible, particularly when attention focuses exclusively on the opportunities created by urban expansion.
The 1948 acquisition raises questions about the relationship between development and the rights of established communities. Who determined the future use of the land? How were the interests of residents represented? What support did displaced people receive? And how were their homes, livelihoods and cultural connections considered in the process?
These questions do not require the assumption that every later development was harmful. They require recognition that the benefits of urban growth and the costs borne by existing residents may not have been shared equally.
The Oniru family’s traditional landholding history is an important part of the story, but it is not a substitute for the experiences of the wider community. The people who lived and worked on the land also belong in the historical record.
A fuller account of Victoria Island must therefore look beyond the value of the finished district. It must consider the transition from traditional landholding to government acquisition, the people affected by that change, and the way the area’s identity developed over time.
Remembering Iru Town Beneath Victoria Island
The transformation of land associated with Iru Town and the Oniru family into part of modern Victoria Island is a story of land acquisition, urban expansion and changing identity. The 1948 acquisition by the Lagos Executive Development Board helped prepare the way for later development, while surveying and reclamation changed the physical landscape.
But the history is not complete without the people whose lives were connected to the land. Their homes, livelihoods, community ties and cultural memories form part of the story, just as surely as the roads and buildings that later appeared.
The name Victoria Island has become familiar across Nigeria, but the history that preceded it deserves to remain part of public memory. Remembering Iru Town is not a rejection of the modern district. It is a recognition that the land had a history before its present identity, and that the people who came before the skyline should not be forgotten.
READ MORE: Ancient & Pre-Colonial Nigeria
Author’s Note
Victoria Island’s development cannot be understood only through its buildings, property values and commercial importance. The 1948 acquisition of land associated with the Oniru family connects the district’s modern history to Iru Town, the disruption experienced by local residents and questions about how colonial-era decisions shaped land ownership and place names. Remembering this history gives greater visibility to the people whose lives were affected and recognises that a place’s identity includes not only what was built there, but also the communities and traditions that came before it.
References
Lawanson, Taibat, Damilola Odekunle and Isaac Olawale Albert. “Urban Redevelopment and the Right to the City in Lagos, Nigeria.” In Urban Crisis and Management in Africa. Pan-African University Press, 2019.
City Property Development Limited v. Attorney-General, Lagos State and Others. Supreme Court of Nigeria, 1976.
Olukoju, Ayodeji. “Lagos in the 19th Century.” Oxford Research Encyclopedia of African History, 2019.
Smith, Robert S. The Lagos Consulate, 1851–1861. University of California Press, 1979.
