Kogi picks on another Cement company over land ownership

Kogi state has picked on another Cement plant in the state few days after the federal government intervened in its ownership tussle with Dangote Cement Plant in Obajana.

The state’s assembly on Monday issued a summon at a public hearing of one of its ad-hoc committees BUA Group, a cement manufacturing firm, over a 50,000-hectare land it acquired 10 years ago — but is allegedly yet to pay for.

Alfa Momoh-Rabiu, Deputy Speaker of the House, read the summons following a presentation from Salihu Mustapha, acting surveyor-general of the state.

“We are having problems with the BUA Group over 50,000 hectares of land it acquired in 2012 and even obtained a certificate of occupancy (C of O) but has not paid a kobo for the land,” Mustapha had said in his presentation.

“We have written to the group several times but it has not responded to any of the letters. No compensation has been paid to the communities that own the expanse of land.’’

READ ALSO: Kogi becoming lawless under Yahaya Bello – HURIWA

Umar Tenimu, the ad-hoc committee’s chairman, said it was an offence for BUA Group to hold the land for more than 10 years without paying for it.

He said the company should be summoned to “come and explain why it refused to pay for the land and why it refused to compensate the community involved”.

Mustapha added that if BUA Group refuses to pay for the land and compensate the community, the government shall revoke the certificate of occupancy.

It would be recalled that Kogi state is currently in a heated battle with Dangote Industries Limited (DIL) over the ownership of the Obajana Cement Plant.

The Kogi government says the Dangote Group should provide proof of ownership in the ongoing Obajana Cement ownership tussle.

However, the federal government at last week’s National Security Council meeting held in Abuja, ordered the reopening of the plant which was shut down by the Kogi state Assembly.

The council also advised that all that issues in contention be resolved legally adding that the government’s commitment to providing employment was not negotiable.