The Kano Chamber of Commerce, Industry, Mines and Agriculture (KACCIMA) has raised the alarm over what it described as a fraudulent move to dispose of the Ado Bayero Shopping Mall.

The Chamber insisted that the facility, which is currently under a Build, Operate and Transfer (BOT) agreement with a private company, belongs to KACCIMA and is not for sale.

Briefing journalists on Saturday in Kano, the President of KACCIMA, Ambassador Usman Darma, warned members of the public to disregard any information suggesting that the 11-hectare property had been put up for sale.

Amb. Darma disclosed that the BOT contractual agreement spans 35 years, adding that the Chamber is patiently awaiting a formal review of the agreement, 18 years after it was executed.

He said: “About 18 years ago, the land was acquired by some investors who built the shopping mall and named it after the late Emir, Ado Bayero. The Chamber leased the land to them under a 35-year Build, Operate and Transfer agreement, and since then, they have been paying the Chamber an annual rent of N5 million.

“How can you be sitting on 11 hectares of land at such a strategic location for 18 years and be paying only N5 million annually? Despite that, they later collected another one hectare, for which they are paying just N1 million per year. This is why the Chamber decided it was time to review the agreement.”

Amb. Darma added that it was surprising that as the Chamber began preparations to review the agreement, reports suddenly surfaced on social media suggesting that the property was being sold.

“We woke up to see trending news on social media that some people are putting the entire place up for sale. We cannot take this lightly. These lands belong to the Kano Chamber of Commerce. Anybody who thinks he can dispose of them is doing so at his own peril and will bear the consequences,” he warned.

While acknowledging the stature and personalities of the investors involved in the project, the KACCIMA President said the Chamber would formally write to them to address the issue.

He reiterated that the agreement was for 35 years, noting that 18 years—more than 50 per cent of the contract period—had already elapsed.

“So, we are going to review the agreement and ensure that the Chamber receives the rightful returns from the investment,” he added.