..….Community rejects alleged 30-year lease, demands compensation for destroyed farmlands
The people of Kare-Epere Zion Community in the Agge axis of Burutu Local Government Area, Delta State, have rejected an alleged ₦150 million land deal involving Sterling Oil Exploration and Energy Production Company Limited (SEEPCO), declaring that no amount of money can make them surrender their ancestral homeland.
The community also accused the oil company of allegedly invading its territory and destroying farmlands, crops and economic trees with bulldozers, demanding adequate compensation for affected families and clarification of the circumstances surrounding the alleged encroachment.
The controversy reportedly centres on a proposed 30-year lease of community land to SEEPCO, with an alleged ₦150 million arrangement raising questions about the ownership of the land, the legitimacy of the negotiations and whether the indigenous landowners gave their consent.
In a statement made available to journalists on Wednesday, Community Chairman, Comrade Tomone Moses, described the community’s resistance as a struggle to protect its ancestral inheritance, cultural identity and economic survival.
“Our position is unequivocal: Kare-Epere is not for sale, and ₦150 million cannot purchase the identity, history and ancestral birthright of its people,” Moses declared.
He insisted that the community’s ancestral territory was not an ordinary commercial asset that could be exchanged for financial consideration, stressing that it represented the people’s homes, history, cultural heritage and economic security.
According to him, a 30-year lease would have far-reaching consequences for land use, farming activities, settlement, access to natural resources and the future of generations yet unborn.
“The community cannot reasonably be expected to surrender its ancestral interests while questions surrounding the legitimacy, boundaries, terms and consent associated with the proposed arrangement remain unresolved,” he said.
Also reacting, the Delta State Spokesperson of the Niger Delta Civil Society Forum, Comrade Luck Uto, condemned the alleged transaction, describing it as unacceptable for a community’s ancestral territory to become the subject of a long-term commercial arrangement without resolving fundamental issues of ownership, consent and compensation.
Uto disclosed that those allegedly involved in the transaction, including the company, would be profiled and referred to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, for investigation.
DEMANDS COMPENSATION FOR DESTROYED FARMS
Meanwhile, the community expressed concern over allegations that bulldozers had already entered its territory, destroying farmlands, crops and economic trees.
The affected families reportedly depend largely on agriculture for food, household income and livelihood, making the alleged destruction a major source of concern.
Community stakeholders noted that economic trees take several years to mature, while cultivated farmlands represent years of investment, labour and sacrifice by indigenous farming families.
They, therefore, called on SEEPCO to urgently address the allegations and account for any damage caused to community properties.
The stakeholders demanded adequate compensation for all verified destruction of farmlands, crops and economic trees, as well as measures to restore the livelihoods of affected families.
They further insisted that compensation for destroyed properties must be assessed independently of any proposed lease payment, stressing that such compensation cannot substitute for the legitimate consent of landowners or resolve outstanding questions over ancestral ownership.
A community youth leader, who condemned the alleged arrangement, declared that the people would not trade their identity and ancestral inheritance for financial inducement.
“Kare-Epere people will not surrender their identity for a financial settlement. Their ancestral homeland is not a corporate bargaining chip, and their economic future cannot be sacrificed for commercial convenience,” he said.
The community maintained that no commercial arrangement involving its ancestral territory could be considered legitimate without addressing land ownership, obtaining the consent of the indigenous people and resolving claims arising from the alleged destruction of their means of livelihood.
