BUA group has reacted to threat by Kogi State government that it would revoke it’s 50,000 hectares of land allocated to it in 2012, should the company fail to develop it saying that Kogi State government can revoke the land.
Kogi had threaten the revocation over non-payment of compensation by the Company.
In a statement by BUA group which was made available to journalists, the company disclosed that ‘since their invitation by the State Government in 2012 to invest in the State through the land, no visible effort by the the State Government and its successors to address issues of access to the land.
According to the company they opted to have the Certificate of Occupancy revoked by the State in view of the fact that not only lack of infrastructure to provide access to the land a hindrance, but there have been recurring security challenges around the area in the years after the initial indication of interest and granting of the C of O.
Moreover, the terrain of the land in question, after feasibility was done revealed that it would not be able to serve the purpose for which BUA intended.
According to BUA, ‘ we conducted feasibility on the land and found out that only about 30% of the entire land mass is suitable for investment, with the rest consisting of rocks, hilly and undulating areas which is not suitable for its intended purpose.
As an investor, BUA also claimed that issues of security of its investment as well as staff is also paramount hence the company had to think twice given the deteriorating security situation in the area.
The company further revealed that it has a record of being one of the best when it comes to paying of dues and entitlements to States and local indigenes anywhere it operates and this is verifiable in all the states where it has investments.
The BUA group also said, ‘As a responsible organisation, we believe in the principle of equity sustainable business practices and fairness’ and this has been the hallmark of their activities and operations everywhere they do business either with communities or governments.
Regretting that the land cannot be used for its intended purposes, the company therefore says the State Government can go ahead and revoke the Certificate of Occupancy.
