Mild drama as Reps committee probes dispute over proposed Burara II Hydropower project

There was mild drama at the House of Representatives Committee on Water Resources as lawmakers began deliberations on a petition stemming from a dispute between Abuja Power Company Limited (APCL) and the Federal Ministry of Water Resources and Sanitation over the proposed Burara II Hydropower Project in Niger State.

The disagreement, which has drawn attention to the management and oversight of key infrastructure projects, set the tone for a tense session during the committee’s meeting in Abuja.

Speaking at the hearing, the Chairman of the committee, Sada Soli, explained that the issue falls squarely within the committee’s constitutional oversight responsibilities, stressing that the lawmakers are duty-bound to ensure transparency and accountability in the handling of public assets and projects.

According to Soli, the committee received a formal petition from APCL’s legal representatives raising concerns about the Burara II hydropower project and the role of the ministry in the matter.

Gurara II, Hydropower Project, is a proposed multipurpose dam project located in Niger State. Lawmakers explained that the Burara dam axis is a federal government irrigation dam area situated off the Buarli Jere Junction road, leading towards Kaluniga and Kampacheng.

At the hearing, the Minister of Water Resources and Sanitation, Mr Joseph Terlumun Utsev confirmed that he was representing the Federal Government, while APCL was represented by its lawyers and a company director, Prof. George Momen, who appeared on behalf of the firm after its managing director was unable to attend.

Presenting the petition, APCL’s lead counsel, Oluwemi Okunbi, SAN, told the committee that the dispute centres on the Gurara II project, which he said was initiated by his client as far back as 2004.

He alleged that “APCL obtained a Certificate of Occupancy (C of O) from the Niger State Government to develop the project, only for the same government to revoke it following alleged interventions by federal officials in a bid to transfer the project to another company.

“APCL was forced to approach the courts on two occasions to restore the revoked title, a process that significantly delayed the project.

The lawyer explained that the Gurara project was conceived as a multipurpose development covering irrigation, power generation and hospitality, with intended benefits for host communities and the wider economy.

“APCL repeatedly sought an amicable resolution with the Ministry of Water Resources and other relevant authorities, including the Office of the Attorney-General of the Federation, stressing that the matter was of national importance and ought not to be prolonged through litigation”, he added.

In its petition, APCL made three key prayers before the committee. First, it urged the lawmakers to note that the concession or PPP arrangement allegedly awarded to a Chinese firm, CGC Nigeria Limited, for the Gurara II project contravened the Public Procurement Act, the ICRC Act and regulations governing unsolicited proposals.

Secondly, APCL asked that CGC Nigeria Limited be restrained from taking further steps on the project unless equivalent terms were first offered to APCL as the original project initiator.

In the alternative, the company requested that if the ministry chose not to proceed with APCL’s unsolicited proposal, APCL should be properly compensated in line with extant laws, and the project advertised and procured through a competitive bidding process.
Prof. Momen, speaking briefly, confirmed that the prayers reflected APCL’s position.

Responding, the Minister of Water Resources and Sanitation told the committee that Burara II is a proposed 360-megawatt multipurpose dam project conceived after the completion of Burara I. He said the project was designed to support power generation, irrigation of about 8,000 hectares of land, fisheries, flood control and tourism.

He explained that in 2010, the ministry engaged three consortiums to carry out technical assessments on the project with the expectation that it would be funded by the Federal Government. However, due to funding constraints, the ministry later adopted a selective procurement process and awarded the project to CGC based on technical and financial evaluations.

The minister said APCL only surfaced after the project had been procured, claiming it had previously been allocated land and incurred expenses. He noted that upon assuming office, he invited both APCL and the Chinese firm for discussions and advised them to reach an agreement on compensation.

However, he said the matter became complicated when APCL proceeded to court, adding that the ministry had consistently maintained that it could not engage in settlement talks while the matter remained in litigation.

“So long as this issue is in court, our hands are tied. If it is withdrawn from court, then we can sit as a family and resolve it amicably,” the minister said.
Several lawmakers raised concerns about due diligence, ownership of the project, the role of the Niger State Government, and whether APCL acted as a volunteer or with lawful authority when it commenced work on the site.

Others cautioned that the committee must avoid delving into issues that are still before the courts, warning that doing so could prejudice ongoing judicial proceedings.

Following intervention by the Commitee at the end of the meeting, APCL agreed to adjourn the case in court sine die pending when the issue to properly resolved with the ministry of water resources.