By Shadrach Aziz Kamara
The Joint Parliamentary Oversight Committees on Transparency and Communications has questioned officials of Pavi Fort Road Construction Company over the handling of utility relocation and damage costs associated with a major road construction project, with lawmakers raising concerns about accountability and project management.
Chairman of the Joint Oversight Committees, Hon. Maada Lebbie, led the inquiry during a committee hearing, focusing on damages caused to utility infrastructure, including fibre-optic cables and other installations, during road expansion works.
Managing Director of Pavi Fort Road Construction Company, Mohamed Kamara, explained that before construction commenced, detailed project designs were shared with all utility service providers to identify where their infrastructure was located within the project corridor. According to him, the project involved several stakeholders, including the contractor, the Ministry of Transport, the Project Management Unit (PMU), and the supervising consultant.
Kamara maintained that under the project arrangement, all matters relating to the relocation of utility infrastructure and the associated costs fall under the responsibility of the Project Management Unit rather than the contractor.
He explained that whenever relocation of utility facilities became necessary, the PMU was expected to engage the affected utility companies and coordinate the process.
Responding to questions regarding an incident at Aberdeen Junction in 2021, Kamara said damages occurred during construction activities while road widening was being undertaken. However, he argued that correspondence demanding compensation was directed to the contractor instead of the PMU, which he described as unusual since the PMU was managing the project on behalf of the Government.
The committee chairman questioned whether the contractor had implemented the project according to the approved design and scope of work, and whether the contract permitted damage to existing utility infrastructure.
In response, Kamara clarified that the intention was never to damage any property but rather to relocate utility lines positioned within the proposed road alignment. He explained that during relocation exercises, accidental damages can sometimes occur despite efforts to carry out the work safely.
He further stated that provisions for utility relocation costs are normally included within the overall project budget and should therefore be handled by the PMU. He noted that while the company undertook and financed some minor relocation works, such as moving smaller utility crossings, it lacked the financial capacity to execute larger and more expensive relocation works without reimbursement from the project managers.
Committee members also questioned why the issue had remained unresolved several years after the incident. Kamara responded that there had been little engagement between the parties since 2021 and reiterated that the PMU should be fully involved in resolving the matter because it supervised utility-related activities throughout the implementation of the project.
The chairman stressed the need for all relevant institutions, particularly the Project Management Unit, to appear before the committee to clarify their roles and responsibilities. He observed that the committee was dealing with substantial public funds and emphasized that accountability was essential in determining who should bear the costs arising from utility relocation and damages.
The committee subsequently resolved to invite the Project Management Unit and the Chief Executive of Officer Pavi Fort Road Construction Company to provide further explanations as Parliament continues its oversight of the project and seeks a lasting resolution to the outstanding compensation issues.
