Cross River: Construction Firm in an N42bn Road Contract Controversy… Denies Allegation, Says “Govt Still Owing Us”

Did a construction firm, Zeka Global Company Limited receive N42b as a contract fee for the construction of the Calabar-Odukpani dual carriageway? This is a poser many in Cross River would want an answer to.

Essentially, while stakeholders and critics in the state swear that Zeka received the whopping sum to undertake the road construction, the company insists it didn’t set eyes on any sum close to a billion for the project. The Firm said the allegation was a ploy to tarnish its reputation and set it on a collision cause with the people of the State.

Setting the record straight,  a Director in the construction firm,  Engineer Ibrahim Adesina Tiamiyu, disclosed that the contract was not even half of the figure being bandied by an online news portal.

According to him, “It is completely false and mischievous to insinuate that the cost of the contract was N42 billion. The actual cost of the project was N17bn.”

Offering insight into how Zeka Global Company Ltd was engaged by the Cross River State government, Tiamiyu said: “We came into the picture when other contractors were asking for cut-throat fees to handle the project and the government could not muster that. What Zeka did for Cross River State was more or less a  direct labour service which went a long way in reducing the cost of constructing the road.

The award or engagement letter issued to us was to function as a “Service Provider” under a direct labour arrangement with the state Infrastructure Company,  Infra-Cross. It was based on our rich profile that Zeka was engaged. Some contractors had charged the government about N60bn before the immediate past governor had to look in our direction that we should come in as a service provider.”

The Director lamented that despite their diligence and commitment to the completion of the project, “we are yet to be fully paid. The company is still owed a balance of N2bn. This is besides debts owed the company from projects executed outside the dual carriageway for the state government”

n official of the immediate past administration in the state who pleaded anonymity also dismissed the figure, describing it as a phantom.

His words: “purveyors of the phantom N42 billion contract sum were less concerned about fact-checking with the relevant ministries and agencies of government before speculating on the contract sum ”

Located on 147 Ndidem Usang Iso Road, the company which began the construction in 2020 finally completed and delivered the project in 2023.

Speaking on some failed portions of the road,  Tiamiyu disclosed that “normally in road construction, there is a period called Defects liability period where the road is open to traffic for six months to observe its behaviour. If there is a defect during the six months, the contractor returns to the site to fix or address whatever the defects are. So it’s not right to say the road has failed. It is mischievous to insinuate as such.

According to the Director, there are a lot of factors that could have caused a road to fail. He clarified that “the portion of the road that gave way was later discovered to be sitting on shale materials. That was what caused that particular portion to give way. And with what we have noticed, we are waiting for the rains to cease so that we can return to the site to get it fixed, despite that the shale materials we found were not captured in the Bill of Engineering Measurement and Evaluation (BEME).”

Corroborating Tiamiyu’s assertion, Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Works, Dr Godwin Akeke,  Director,  Civil, Ministry of Works, Dr Desmond Ewa, and Engineer Pius Okpa, Director, Inditek Partners and Consultant to the Cross River State Ministry of Works all agreed that “the issue on the portion of the road that gave way is not about the competence of Zeka as a company that handled the work. There were underlying issues which were not foreseen such as underground seepage of water, the presence of amco pipes buried under the ground and the prevalence of borrow pits. If these were not foreseen and were not part of the contractor’s design and schedule, the contractor would not handle them because they were not covered under the terms of engagement. So there will be a need for variation because he did not know that under seepage was taking place there. Against this backdrop, the portion of the road was likely to give way. However, since it is still within the defects liability period the contractor will go back to the site but with variation in the contract.

So the issue of competence does not arise. People are making insinuations simply because it is an indigenous contractor and they will do everything to discredit them.”

Tiamiyu, however, appealed: “We will greatly appreciate it if the government can pay us the outstanding balance of N2bn due to the company to help quicken our return to the site to fix the failed portion.”