Akanimo Sampson in Port Harcourt writes on Rivers State Government’s plan to demolish waterfronts in Port Harcourt and the attendant political controversy.
The contentious waterfronts in Port Harcourt, the capital city of Rivers State, will soon be reduced to rubbles. The governor does not yield easily to pleas as far as it concerns the issue of security. For him, levelling the waterfronts is the elixir his administration needs for the worrisome security challenges in the capital city.
Amaechi would have demolished it in 2010 but his political strategists may have convinced him to play low on the sensitive issue of water fronts in their permutations for his electoral support in the April polls.
Before the elections, it was not easy to predict where the votes of the people of Kalabari and Okrika would go as far as the issue of water fronts was concerned.?
Neither the Kalabari people nor their Okrika kinsmen have so far shifted ground from their strong opposition to government’s planned demolition. There is also no known backstage political settlement between the protagonist and antagonist forces in the raging water fronts conflict.
Before now, Kalabari political leaders in the United States, wrote to former Governor Celestine Omehia, over moves by his short-circuited administration to bulldoze all water fronts within Port Harcourt. In the April polls, Omehia braced to unseat Amaechi, on the platform of the All Progressive Grand Alliance (APGA) and the issue of water fronts dominated the front burner.
Another rival to Amaechi was Dr. Abiye Sekibo, of the Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN), an Okrika. Amaechi and Omehia, are cousins, and Ikwerre.
In the wake of the cult war which rocked the state in August, 2007, the Omehia administration identified the water fronts as sanctuaries of the armed youths never hid his intention to clear the place of rubbles.
The decision by both Amaechi and Omehia, to level the water fronts believed to be housing over 800,000 citizens over half of whom are Ijaws, have been attracting public outcry. The opposition see the move as an official cover to wipe out Ijaw activists.
Sekibo’s kinsmen have been very vociferous in their opposition to government’s stance on water fronts. Also boosting the opposition movement is the Kalabari Political Action Committee (K-PAC).? In an open letter to government, the leaders of K-PAC said they were not in support of the planned demolition.
K-PAC Chairman, Chief Mpaka Princewill, and the Public Affairs Chairman of the Ijaw group, Wilfred Inko-Tariah, rose in stout opposition to the bulldozers invading the water fronts. Marked for demolition however, are 25 aboriginal coastal communities, notably Marine Base, Okrika, Ibadan, Creek Road , Borokiri, Ndoki, Bundu,Udi, Abonnema Wharf and Afikpo, among others.??
From inside accounts, the choice of the waterfront areas for demolition stems from the notion that much of the internecine strife that has occasioned a de facto state of emergency in the state has been due to the fratricidal contests for gangland control of the city by cult groups based in the riverine areas of the state.? These gangland operatives supposedly take refuge in the waterfront areas.? The plan, then, was to deny them safe harbour by tearing down all housing structures in the affected riverine areas.
Understandably, the demolition project has drawn comment from many authentic voices of the riverine communities of the state, and even from neighbouring states.?
Groups representing Bonny, Okrika, Kalabari, and others have made statements too.? There is concern about whether there has been adequate prior planning for the temporary resettlement of the soon-to-be-displaced internal refugees; and whether there are plans to build enough housing units to accommodate those displaced once a rebuilding phase is completed.??
There is also concern that there may be a repeat of what citizens experienced in the Rainbow Town demolition exercise—namely, that some 1.2 million people were forcibly evicted without consultation, adequate notice, compensation, resettlement or rehabilitation.?
But most of all, there is great concern that the demolition is a thinly disguised exercise in ethnic cleansing, since the waterfront areas are where the riverine peoples—the Ijaws of Okrika, Bonny, Kalabari, Opobo make their homes.?
The opposing community leaders told Amaechi: ‘’we are concerned because we cannot be certain what your government’s intentions truly are beyond the rhetoric of desiring to effect municipal improvement.? However, we do take note that others have asserted, rightly or wrongly, that in order to remain politically relevant, you have made a very hasty decision to wipe out all the Ijaws? from their aboriginal homes in the waterfronts and, through government fiat,? re-allocate their lands to others (who, according to you, constitute 80% of the population).
‘’We, members of the Kalabari Political Action Committee—K-PAC, have so far refused to weigh in on these issues because they are unsettled.? We do not wish to be in the position of divining your government’s hidden intentions, if any.? We readily concede that there is a need for urban renewal and redevelopment.?
We are mindful that Nigeria’s large urban areas have attracted unplanned development inhabited by squatters who build shantytowns, with no regard for orderly growth.?
Something needs to be done to spruce up our erstwhile “Garden City” to a standard befitting Port Harcourt’s position as the showcase city of our state. However, what is happening now is fraught with problems and pitfalls.
Well-meaning persons, we reason, ought to bring these potential problems to your attention.? That is what we are attempting here,’’ the group stressed.
Demolition was billed to commence at Bonny Waterside, going by reports.? According to the group, it foresees and forewarn of, a number of consequences of unpredictable scope and magnitude.
The first of their concerns is the ‘’suddenness’’ of pushing out large numbers of people without forward and transparent planning.? While a facelift is a desirable goal, they question whether this way of going about it is the right way to proceed.? There is universal agreement that upwards of a million people live in these waterfront areas and uprooting them at such short notice will lead to a devastating problem of internal displacement.?
Analysts believe it is not enough to claim, as government has been doing, that previous administrations had intended to carry out redevelopment of the city.
Government, they believe, has to show compassion.? Over and beyond this, in a land where there are hardly any organized and functional programmes of social security and welfare for the aged, the sick and poor children, government also has the responsibility not to compound the misery of the people’s daily lives or engage in activities injurious to their interests.??
However, they argued that if government must proceed with demolition, ‘’K-PAC wants the government to disclose its detailed plans regarding:? where the residents whose homes are to be demolished will be relocated; when a new housing project will begin and what its scope will be; what will be the duration of construction of the new housing development; which areas will be developed first, to be followed by which areas. Another question agitating the minds of people which must be answered is whether the previous occupants of the areas to be demolished—those of them that are legal residents—will be guaranteed first call on the new development.?
Aside this, a cross section of people who spoke with LEADERSHIP urged government to hold town hall meetings with affected constituents to discuss the issue openly. They believe the only way the governor can bring about transparency on this matter was through such open interaction.
‘’Good, transparent and forward planning will do all of us a world of good in this project.? That is the first thing needed.
Indeed, we do have detailed ideas (e.g. a fisherman’s center, a waterfront walkway, a nature and exercise trail, construction of naval facilities, etc.) for the development of the waterfront areas and would be pleased to share them with a planning commission or other entity entrusted with the task of redevelopment of these areas.? But by all means, we say plan first, then let demolition begin. And we would strongly recommend phased demolition rather than tearing everything down in one fell swoop,” K-PAC wrote. But will the falcon hear the falconer?