32. The 3rd -_ 5th defendants, in their defence, averred that the I - I occupiers of the building at the said waterfront were mere squatters. 33. That though Rivers State Government had plans to carry out some Urban Development demolition of illegal Harcourt, it structures Projects, including and buildings the in Port never intended to den1olish all waterfront settlements. Further, the waterfront settlements ear-n1ar·ked for demolition were those densely populated areas, including the Bundu waterfront, that were used as hideouts by hoodlums and miscreants, who have been deemed security risk to River State and other neighbouring States. - - - - -·--""34;'That before any - demolition exercise was effected, the landlords of the waterfront were invited for meetings with the defendants, to discuss issues on settlemnt of the inhabitants, payment of compensation or outright purchase of the buildings in order to ameliorate their sufferings. And that most of the landlords were· in support of the demolition exercise on satisfactory terms. 35. That in the case of the Bundu waterfront, earmarked for demolition, the Special Adviser to the 3rd defendant held meetings with the stakeholders and proposed alternative l 11 -