Developer denies alleged firm’s involvement in Lagos flooding

A property developer, Chief Ken Ukaoha, has denied allegations that his property at Abba Court, Mahogany Close, Osborne Foreshore Estate, Ikoyi, Lagos, obstructed a canal and contributed to the flooding ravaging components of the property.

Ukaoha, related to Kenshad International Limited and Kensha Group Limited, mentioned the canal passing by means of his property served the Ilubirin axis and was not linked to the drainage system serving different components of Osborne Estate.

Speaking throughout a fact-finding go to on Friday to the positioning, he attributed the flooding to the property’s low-lying terrain, gathered silt, land settlement and growing strain on present drainage infrastructure.

He famous that Osborne was developed on sand-filled land, which had continued to settle over time, affecting roads and drainage amenities, whereas elevated property growth had raised the amount of water coming into the property.

The developer claimed  that his firm had spent about N160 million on dredging and drainage upkeep in two years, comprising N100 million final 12 months and N60 million this 12 months.

He mentioned the intervention concerned participating long-reach excavators to take away gathered mud and restore the water-carrying capability of drainage channels.

“This year, we paid N60 million. We brought in long-reach excavators. Each long excavator charges us N1 million daily. Last year, we spent N100 million. I will give you all the payment details and the name of the company for verification,” he mentioned.

Ukaoha proposed a complete reconstruction of the most important canal, development of a reservoir and set up of three industrial pumping machines to discharge extra water into the lagoon, whereas stopping tidal water from flowing again into the property.

He maintained that his firm’s involvement was by means of a Public-Private Partnership association with the federal authorities below a Build, Operate and Transfer mannequin.

He additionally linked the controversy partly to a three-year disagreement with one other particular person over entry to a gate close to a transformer he put in, alleging that the opposite get together violated a authorities directive to droop actions on the disputed location.