Reps Probes Gurara II Hydropower Project Dispute

By Oluwakemi Kindness

The House of Representatives has begun deliberations on a petition over a long-running dispute between Abuja Power Company Limited (APCL) and the Federal Ministry of Water Resources and Sanitation regarding the proposed Gurara II Hydropower Project in Niger State.

The Chairman of the committee, Sada Soli, said the petition —pitting APCL against the Federal Government—falls squarely within its oversight responsibility, confirming that the petition was formally submitted by the company through its legal representatives.

Gurara II, also referred to as Burara II, is a proposed 360-megawatt multipurpose dam project designed to support power generation, irrigation, fisheries, flood control and tourism.

The project site, located within a Federal Government irrigation dam corridor in Niger State, lies off the Buarli Jere Junction road toward Kaluniga and Kampacheng.

During the hearing, APCL’s legal counsel, Oluwemi Okunbi SAN, explained that the company initiated the Gurara II concept in 2004 and secured a Certificate of Occupancy from the Niger State Government for the project site.

The firm alleged that the title was later revoked following federal interventions aimed at transferring the project to another developer.

APCL stated that it had twice gone to court to restore the revoked title, causing extended delays to a project it originally conceived as a multipurpose development with benefits for host communities and the national economy.

The company added that it made several attempts to reach an amicable resolution with relevant government authorities, arguing that prolonged litigation undermined public interest.

In its petition, APCL presented three key requests:
• that the alleged concession or PPP arrangement awarded to CGC Nigeria Limited be declared as having violated the Public Procurement Act, the ICRC Act and regulations guiding unsolicited proposals;
• that CGC be restrained from taking further steps on the project unless APCL is offered equivalent terms as the original project initiator;
• or, in the alternative, that APCL be compensated in line with existing laws if government opts not to proceed with its proposal, and that the project be publicly advertised for competitive bidding.

Responding, the Minister  of Water Resources and Sanitation, prof. Joseph Utsev, maintained that the project was originally intended to be government-funded, and that in 2010, three consortiums were engaged for technical assessments.

According him, the project was later awarded to CGC Nigeria Limited through a selective procurement process after technical and financial evaluations.

The minister also stated that APCL only surfaced after the procurement process had been concluded, presenting claims of prior land allocation and expenditure.

It added that efforts were made to encourage both APCL and CGC to reach a settlement, but discussions stalled when APCL returned to court.

Lawmakers at the hearing raised questions regarding the legitimacy of APCL’s earlier activities on the site, the role of the Niger State Government, and whether due process was followed in awarding the project.

They also cautioned against actions that could interfere with matters still undergoing judicial review.

The committee said it will examine all documents submitted by the parties—including court records, letters and technical assessments—before deciding on the next steps toward resolving the dispute surrounding the Gurara II Hydropower Project.