Akoko Edo Rep, Hon. Peter Akpatason, has praised the resident responsible for the controversial video centered on the Lawani road project with comments that his action drew attention to the project and initiated investigations expected to uncover all the details surrounding it.
Speaking in a recent interview, Akpatason said the controversy that trailed the video was met by immediate action by his office while also attributing the social media outcry by the resident as an indication of the growing sense of ownership and duty communities feel towards projects executed in their domains, a development he claims is positive.
However, he explained that preliminary reports made available to him following an assessment by members of his team revealed some of the accusations to be misleading, even as he awaits details of the contracts from the rural development department of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development where the project is domiciled.
The department, controlled by the Executive branch of government, was responsible for the awarding of the project to a contractor and is thus in possession of its Bills of Quantity where the execution details are spelled out.
Akpatason said: “When I got to the office being the first day after I saw the video, I wrote a letter to the rural development department of the ministry of agriculture to furnish me with details of the contract and also for them to do on the spot assessment of what’s going on to establish whether actually the job is shoddily done or not, so that if they find any such thing appropriate sanctions can be meted out to whoever is culpable. So, that’s it so far. I’m expecting their feedback today, hopefully. By the time we get their feedback, we will now swing into action properly. But in the meantime, the preliminary reporting got from my team in Akoko Edo clearly contradicts the report that was presented in that video.”
“The job is ongoing at the time he made this video, the workers were right there working, work was ongoing when he met them, raised the issue of not having iron rods in certain parts of the job that was ongoing. Sincerely speaking, I don’t have the details about the base of quantity, which indicates what should be where and all of that I only obtained those documents now. I checked the report of my people and what it indicated is that the portion of the drainage showed to the world is actually not part of the work given to the contractor.”
“However, the contractor was actually involved in doing it as part of the support to the community based on the request of the community people, who have come out to confirm that yes they requested for that. Reason being that the length of work he was given to do, ended at a point where the water will not easily flow into the right channel, the stream that is close to that place. They felt that if the additional work is not done then they will be having a challenge with that drainage and the contractor agreed with them to support the community to do that job.”
“What I will say clearly is that if I were in a contractor’s position if I choose to give assistance to support the community, I will do the same quality that’s contained in my BOQ. If what he did is different from that, then, I won’t be happy with him. We are going to analyze that. The report I have for my people is a shoulder of the road, not the road itself and those materials are waste materials.”
“Basically, that is it. But I appreciate the fact that somebody in the community was able to come out to draw attention to what is considered to be poor work, irrespective of the drama. I’m pleased that somebody is doing something.”