LANDMARK BEACH DEMOLITION: OWNER ALLEGES $47M INVESTMENT LOSS
Mr Onwuanibe says the demolition disrupted businesses, destroyed hotel property while guests were still on-site and left more than 160,000 beach members affected. Social media users have questioned the government’s handling of the project, while accountability and compensation remain central issues.
By Avid Reporters | Investigation
The owner of Landmark Beach, Mr Paul Onwuanibe, has recounted the financial losses and human impact of the demolition of the Lagos beachfront property to make way for the Federal Government’s Lagos-Calabar Coastal Highway, alleging that the exercise proceeded without adequate personal notification, meaningful consultation or compensation.
In a conversation with a podcaster, Onwuanibe said the property was acquired in 2006 for $17 million, while a further $30 million was borrowed to develop its infrastructure.
He described the demolition as a devastating blow not only to the property owners but also to the businesses and workers whose livelihoods depended on the beach.
According to him, the authorities did not personally contact him to explain the issues surrounding the property or provide a clear account of what would happen before the demolition began.
“Till today, nobody picked up the phone, called me, or wrote to me personally and said, ‘Here’s the issue you have. Here’s what’s going to happen,'” he said.
His account raises questions about how affected businesses were notified, whether adequate consultations took place and what arrangements, if any, were made to address the financial consequences of the demolition.
ALSO READ: Tinubu Appeals for Another Chance, Defends ‘Painful Reforms’ as 2027 Election Debate Grows
$47m Investment and Unresolved Compensation Questions
Onwuanibe put the historical acquisition cost of the site at $17 million and the additional borrowing for its development at $30 million.
Together, those figures amount to $47 million in acquisition and development financing. However, the amount should not automatically be interpreted as the property’s independently assessed market value or the final compensation due.
Asked whether he had received compensation, Onwuanibe responded that he had not received any payment.
“Not a penny. Till date, we haven’t been compensated,” he said.
When the podcaster asked whether compensation had been promised, he maintained that nobody had written to him with such a promise.
His account leaves an important question unanswered: what formal process, if any, did the government establish to assess the property’s value, determine eligible claims and compensate affected interests?
The Federal Ministry of Works and the relevant project authorities need to clarify whether Landmark Beach’s owners submitted claims, whether any assessment was conducted and what the government’s position is on compensation.
The absence of a written promise, as described by Onwuanibe, does not by itself establish the government’s legal obligations or whether any formal compensation process exists.
Hotel Demolition Allegedly Began While Guests Were Still on the Premises
Beyond the financial figures, Onwuanibe described what he said was a chaotic and distressing scene when the demolition began.
He alleged that guests were still sleeping in the hotel’s rooms and that some people were in the swimming pool when the operation commenced.
According to him, the demolition began before staff could remove basic hotel property, including refrigerators, televisions, mattresses, wall pictures and kitchen plates.
“We didn’t have time to take the fridges from the rooms, the TVs from the walls, the mattresses from the beds, the pictures on the walls,” he said.
He added that the hotel was operating when the demolition took place.
If independently corroborated, these details would raise serious questions about the notice given to hotel management, the arrangements for evacuating guests, the protection of personal belongings and the coordination between demolition officials and businesses operating on the site.
However, the specific circumstances of the operation, including the timing of any notices, the presence of guests and the steps taken to secure the premises, require independent verification.
Businesses and Workers Caught in the Fallout
Onwuanibe argued that the economic consequences extended beyond the loss of the beachfront property itself.
He identified businesses that depended on the beach’s commercial activity as among those that suffered significant revenue losses.
A full assessment of the demolition’s impact would need to establish the number of affected businesses, employees, contractors, vendors and other commercial operators, as well as the duration and scale of their losses.
It would also be necessary to distinguish between the owner’s direct property and financing losses and the separate claims of businesses and individuals that operated within or around the facility.
Coastal Highway: Infrastructure Development Versus Economic Disruption
The demolition occurred amid the Federal Government’s push to develop the Lagos-Calabar Coastal Highway, a major road project intended to improve connectivity along Nigeria’s coastline.
The government has presented the highway as a significant infrastructure initiative. However, projects of this scale also raise questions about land acquisition, environmental impact, community engagement, compensation and the protection of existing economic activity.
Onwuanibe questioned the prioritisation of the road project over the economic activities associated with the coastline.
He argued that the infrastructure project was being treated as more important than the businesses and livelihoods established along the route.
The central issue is not simply whether Nigeria needs new roads. It is whether the government followed transparent, lawful and accountable procedures when implementing a project that affected existing businesses and investments.
A comprehensive investigation would need to examine the approved route, the relevant land acquisition and demolition notices, environmental assessments, consultations with affected stakeholders and the government’s stated justification for the action taken against Landmark Beach.
It should also establish whether alternative alignments or mitigation measures were considered and, if so, why they were accepted or rejected.
These questions are particularly important because public infrastructure projects must balance national development objectives with the rights and legitimate interests of affected people and businesses.
ALSO READ: Akpabio Opposes Decriminalisation of Attempted Suicide, Says Survivors Should Face Jail
Social Media Users Question the Demolition
The demolition has also attracted critical reactions from social media users, some of whom have questioned whether the coastal highway was the only reason the property was targeted.
Chidi Okoroafor wrote:
“He was actually the target. Now the coastal highway to hell has come to a stop. Mission accomplished, landmark succesfully destroyed”.
Nnaemeka Okeke commented:
“Umahi will answer some questions if not today, surely tomorrow.”
Emeka Ozumba wrote:
“He who sow the wind, reaps the whirlwind”.
Madukaku Adaeze alleged that the demolition was motivated by hostility rather than infrastructure considerations, writing:
“The demolition was orchestrated out of hate, nothing else. They just used the coastal road as an excuse.”
The comments reflect anger and suspicion among some social media users over the circumstances surrounding the demolition.
However, the claims that Onwuanibe was personally targeted or that the demolition was motivated by hatred remain allegations and opinions. The comments do not independently establish the motives of government officials or prove that the highway was used as a pretext.
Determining whether the demolition was justified would require documentary evidence, including the approved road alignment, official notices, project records and any relevant correspondence between the authorities and the property owners.
Questions the Federal Government Must Answer
Onwuanibe’s account presents several questions that merit answers from the Federal Government, the Federal Ministry of Works and the relevant project authorities:
- Notice: When was Landmark Beach formally notified that its property would be affected, and what evidence exists of the notice?
- Consultation: Were the owners and affected businesses consulted before the demolition? If so, when and through what process?
- Compensation: Was the property assessed for compensation, and what is the government’s position on the owner’s claim that no payment has been received?
- Hotel occupants: What arrangements were made to protect guests, employees and personal belongings before demolition commenced?
- Route selection: What technical, environmental and planning considerations informed the highway’s alignment through the affected area?
- Economic impact: Did the government conduct an assessment of the businesses, employment and commercial activities likely to be disrupted?
- Accountability: Which agencies and officials authorised and supervised the demolition, and what records are available to explain the decisions taken?
The answers would help establish whether the operation followed the applicable legal and administrative procedures and whether affected parties have access to an effective process for resolving their claims.
A Call for Documentation, Accountability and the Right of Reply
Onwuanibe’s allegations should be examined alongside official records, independent reporting and responses from the authorities responsible for the coastal highway.
The Federal Ministry of Works, the relevant project authorities and any agency responsible for the demolition should be given an opportunity to respond to the allegations and provide documentary evidence supporting their positions.
The investigation should also establish the current status of the highway works at the affected location rather than relying on social media claims about whether construction has stopped.
For now, the owner’s account has brought renewed attention to the human and economic consequences of the demolition. The larger question remains whether the pursuit of major infrastructure development was accompanied by adequate consultation, transparent decision-making and a credible process for addressing the losses suffered by those affected.
Link to the podcast: https://www.facebook.com/share/r/1Cga8iDhZk/
Avid Reporters will continue to seek answers on the demolition, the compensation question and the government’s handling of affected businesses
About the Author
