More than 200 livelihoods have been thrown into uncertainty following an attempted demolition of the multimillion-naira New Berries Park in Enugu, leaving workers, traders and business owners fearing the possible collapse of one of the city’s long-standing hospitality and recreation centres.

The Sunday operation, which partially destroyed sections of the facility, has sparked fresh controversy over the ownership of the property and raised concerns over the fate of hundreds of people whose incomes depend on the business.

When The Nation visited the premises, bulldozers had pulled down parts of the perimeter fence, sections of some buildings and several business outlets within the park.

Witnesses alleged that the demolition team arrived with over 50 masked security operatives carrying rifles, alongside more than 20 suspected thugs, creating panic among workers and customers.

Managing Director of New Berries Park, Mr. Ikenna Abanonu, who spoke from his hospital bed, said property and goods valued at more than N350 million were destroyed during the operation.

Beyond the physical damage, Abanonu lamented that the attempted demolition had placed the jobs of over 200 people in jeopardy, saying many families now face uncertainty.

According to him, the park directly employs 104 workers, while another 78 operators run ancillary businesses, including barbecue, suya and other food outlets, with several others working under them.

“What worries me most is not just the buildings that were damaged but the people whose livelihoods depend on this place. We have over 100 direct employees and dozens of other business operators who also employ people. All these jobs are now under threat,” he said.

Abanonu maintained that New Berries Park had lawfully occupied the property for 21 years under a lease agreement with the National Commission for Museums and Monuments (NCMM), which, he said, would expire in 2028.

He alleged that the dispute began last year after Mrs. Jennifer Onoh, Managing Director of Jenew Homes Limited, informed him that her company had acquired the property. According to him, he insisted that only the Federal Government agency that granted him the lease could formally notify him to vacate the premises.

The businessman further alleged that instead of allowing the matter to be resolved through legal processes, he had been subjected to intimidation after he instituted a court action over the dispute. (The Nation)