Two years into his tenure as Director-General of the Infrastructure Concession Regulatory Commission,Dr. Jobson Oseodion Ewelafoh believes private-sector investment is critical to bridging Nigeria’s huge infrastructure deficit, particularly in energy and transportation. In this interview with Tokunbo Adedoja and James Emejo, he discusses reforms to streamline public-private partnership (PPP) approvals, strengthen regulatory oversight and boost investor confidence. Ewalefoh explains how the Commission is addressing contractual risks, protecting public assets and balancing investors’ returns with affordability for citizens. He also highlights investment opportunities in power and transportation, the potential of unsolicited proposals and prospects for cross-border infrastructure development across West Africa. Excerpts
Two years in the saddle as Director General of ICRC, has there been challenges?
Well, two years in the saddle I would say has not been easy, and easy. I will say it has not been easy because the work we have to do is very challenging and demanding. Mr. President was very clear on the assignment he gave me when I was appointed and that is to use innovative financing to accelerate our infrastructure projects in Nigeria.
And we all know the deficits we have is much; as you all know.
All the reports – the Nigerian Infrastructure Masterplan reports, World Bank and other development institutions, have highlighted the scale of the challenge. As at three years ago, one report estimated that between 2023 and 2046, Nigeria would require about $2.3 trillion to bridge infrastructure gap. And it went ahead to say we would require $100 billion yearly in our budget to build infrastructure. If you check the budget trajectory we’ve had over the last four to five years, you will see that our budget had been less than $50 billion. That means we have more than half of this infrastructure left unattended to through the budget. What that tells you is that the only way to bridge this gap is to leverage on the financing potential of the private sector.
And that report went further to say that the areas that require the financing the most is in energy and transportation; in energy alone, we require about $759 billion and $579 billion in the transport sector. Definitely, government alone cannot do it. And that is the essence of ICRC and I think that is one thing I was charged to come and do here.
I say challenging because the fiscal space is tight right now. And when we came on board, that was at the beginning
of the liberalisation of the foreign exchange regime, same time, we had the removal of fuel subsidy and so the economy was trying to balance itself. There were lots of apprehension among investors and financiers about what was going to be the impact of this policy on their investments? But what we did was that we were able to allay their fears. Mr. President was able to put measure in place that ensured the right balancing of these policies were created on time. Investors can now forecast, and can now plan with specific exchange rate in mind when doing their assumptions and calculations. That has made things easier for us.
And when I said easy also, I don’t think in the history of this country until now, we have the support of the President who wants to leverage the financing of the private-sector. Mr. President has given all the support we need. In doing so, when I took a memo to him and said sir, he should decentralize approval for public-private partnerships, because before now, every approval for PPP projects, whether N1 billion or N200 billion, must go to Federal Executive Council (FEC). But I approached the president and said, “why don’t we look at ways of making PPPs more interesting and attractive to the private sector?” And he charged me to come up with ideas.
When I resumed, we came up with a six-point agenda which clearly aimed to clearly to remove some of the barriers we had identified. Before now, timeline to finish a project takes about two years if you are fast. We removed the barriers and we increased turnaround time. I then found out that one of the things we needed to do was that – ICRC don’t own these projects, we are only regulators. The initiation of these projects must start with MDAs. But what did we find? Most MDAs were reluctant to embrace PPP as alternative for financing infrastructure projects. So, when I came up with the six-point agenda, I approached the MDAs, met with them individually and I had sessions with them trying to let them know that gone are the days. We have rejigged our processes, we have increased the ease of doing business and faster approach. And I will tell you that clearly, they understood us immediately and they bought into the idea.
After that, I approached Mr. president and said one other barrier that we need to remove is thresholds – that all projects must go to FEC; we want decentralization of powers and he equally agreed with us.
And the reasons that actually made us to come up with this was that we have social infrastructure, economic infrastructure including ports, transportation that are self-sustaining. We have social infrastructure that are near to the people like schools, health and housing – that you cannot run purely on commercial terms.
So, to attract investors into that space, we needed to remove the thresholds because the president created the thresholds for us, of N10 billion and N20 billion. For projects below ₦10 billion, approval was delegated to the relevant MDAs. What this has done for us, essentially, is to increase participation in the sector. For example, if you want to install an MRI machine in a hospital, the project could cost less than ₦5 billion. You have to go all the way to FEC. No.
But what did Mr President do? Mr President said we should create a project approval board in place of FEC. If you want to build a student’s hotel, say 100 to 200 bedrooms, it is less than N10 billion and you go to FEC? So, with this threshold that president has brought in, it has made PPPs attractive in the social sector.
By broadening the scope of participation, we can attract more people into the sector. With that support, I think my job has become easier. That was why I said it is easy but challenging. But with the kind of President we have, work became easier because we have his support.
One of the fears investors have had in the past was policy summersault and that a change of government could affect projects and agreements. Investors worry about whether the government will honour its commitments.
But the President has set an example. Since he came on board, he has never canceled any PPPs projects. Rather, when there are challenges, he will say let the parties sit down and renegotiate or find a way to address those concerns. That has improved investor confidence with what we do at ICRC.
We are now approaching an election period. Before now, no investor will talk to you and they will be waiting to see what happens. They feel there would be a change in policy and agreement and that the agreement could be cancelled.
But we have been able to create that assurance and allay those fears, and that we are a country that respects rule of law and sanctity of contracts. We want them to understand that our laws are not merely enacted; they are meant to be observed and enforced. I believe these two things have helped us achieve many of the objectives the government has set out to accomplish over the past few years. One has helped us move forward, while the other has strengthened the framework for infrastructure development.
The President has directed that all PPPs, regardless of the name under which they are structured, should pass through the ICRC. What prompted the need for this directive, and how will the Commission ensure compliance across government?
You will recall that before the ICRC board was inaugurated in August 2008, we had the ICRC Act of 2005. The board was inaugurated in August 2008, and the institution began its work in that period. Prior to that, a lot of initiatives had taken place in the PPP space, and many contracts had been signed and consummated. However, we realised that there was no uniform standard. There were insufficient transparency and no third eye or independent oversight in some cases. Government had been committed in those agreements in one way or the other.
The government therefore felt that there was a need for a uniformity of standards form of contract. We cannot have you call a project a lease and another says it is a concession and another says it is a PPP. And whether you like it or not, the person that has the authority to bind the government is the contractor. The only way we can get out of it as a country is if we establish a fraud.
One project might be called a project agreement, another a lease, another a concession, and another a payment arrangement. Different names and structures were being used.
One example is the case of P&ID. P&ID never passed through ICRC…I am not saying we have fraudulent contracts in MDAs because I cannot allege that but we have means of compliance in best practices and risk-sharing. Everything in a public-private partnership involves the allocation of risks. In PPPs, the general principle is that the party best positioned to manage a particular risk should bear that risk. Therefore, when we review agreements, we must ensure that this principle is properly entrenched.
If you transfer a risk to the government when the private sector is better placed to manage it, the government ultimately bears the consequences. The structure of the agreement must therefore reflect the appropriate allocation of risks.
We noticed this mismatch in most of the contracts that were signed by MDAs, some out of ignorance. In some cases, this has happened out of ignorance. Before now, I do not think we had sufficiently developed the commercial expertise and understanding required to assess these agreements properly.
That is part of what our action plan is addressing through advocacy and capacity-building.
It is part of our responsibility to guide, regulate, support, advocate, supervise and monitor PPP projects.
What we do is not to wait until money has been spent before identifying mistakes. Through our advocacy and review processes, we try to identify problems early and help the MDAs ensure that the right projects PPP agreements are properly structured and consummated.
From our reviews, we have identified these problems. Everything we do is guided by the law, including Section 1 of the ICRC Act.
Any ministry, department, agency or government institution entering into a PPP project, project financing arrangement or joint venture any other form of public-private partnership must comply with the applicable legal and regulatory framework.
It does not matter whether the arrangement is called a joint venture, a concession, a PPP or something else. It must comply with the ICRC Act.
The substance of the arrangement matters more than the name given to it. If it is a public-private partnership arrangement, the applicable requirements must be followed.
We have also focused on fiscal risks because we cannot simply allow contracts to proceed without considering their implications for the government.
An MDA may have the authority to undertake a project, but it does not operate independently of the federal government. It is an agency of the government and must act within the law.
If an agreement is not properly structured, it can create a crisis.
Remember a case in Ogun State when the state government signed a contract with Chinese firms. But when the agreement crystalizes, federal government assets were to be held responsible. Following these experiences, we have emphasised proper screening, transparency, and due diligence purpose. The Ministry of Finance came up with a circular that says any PPP arrangement that does not comply with ICRC requirements and law is null and void. Government was very clear on that.
We have communicated this position to the relevant MDAs as part of the institutional support provided by the ICRC. This has helped redirect many MDAs to the ICRC to ensure that their proposed PPP arrangements are properly reviewed. What we do at ICRC is to ensure that risks are properly shared.
We are also working to improve compliance and consistency in the implementation of these requirements.
I believe awareness remains a major challenge. Many people do not fully understand the implications of the arrangements they enter into. Government agencies may not always appreciate the risks and liabilities that can arise from such agreements.
Sometimes, the problem is a lack of knowledge. But once the financial implications become apparent, the consequences can be serious.
That was what motivated the government to issue the circular directing all MDAs to comply with the established requirements. Otherwise, an agreement may not receive the necessary recognition or approval.
The circular was important because some agencies did not understand the requirements. They were not putting the appropriate safeguards in place, and that was creating problems.
Nigeria has had several PPPs that attracted controversy, litigation or public criticism. What lessons has the ICRC learnt from past failures, and what safeguards now exist to prevent a repeat?
Let me say this that globally not only in Nigeria, PPPs are complex transactions. At the time you begin a project, most of the time, you are working on assumptions and studies. You may have assessed the risks and considered how the project would work.
But when the contract is signed and the project enters the operational stage, many other issues can arise. The bottom line in many of these controversies is that the risks were not properly identified and allocated under the PPP agreement. When we assess projects and determine how risks should be allocated among the parties, we must consider the possibility of litigation and other problems that could arise during the life of the contract. Some of these problems result from force majeure provisions and the failure to properly anticipate and allocate risks. In Nigeria, as I have said, many of these challenges arise from poorly structured contracts, a lack of understanding of the contracts and their implications. If you understand the different sectors and the requirements of each, you will appreciate that each project presents its own challenges. We are also seeing new developments and approaches in this area. As a country, one of the reasons the ICRC exists is to address these mistakes and ensure that they are not repeated. I can give you an example. When the power privatization started. ICRC was not in place. The ports concessions, there were even no Acts, the Act they used was the NPA Act. Our law was passed 2005. so many of the agreements we inherited had been prepared under earlier arrangements or without sufficiently developed standards. So, most of the PPPs you see were badly structured. Even if a project will go wrong there should be safeguards in the contracts to address it. There should be provisions that address it. Even in force majeure, provisions should be in the contract on how you handle such things. And the beauty is this; some of those contracts that were signed then and had issues, some of them don’t have provisions for amendments. So, following those mistakes, when we came on board, we always insist that for every contract signed, there must be periodic reviews and there must be room for amendment, and the amendment can be triggered by either party to the contract.
When we noticed some of these issues, we agreed that the most essential instrument is the concession agreement which is the bible of the project. We noticed some of the inconsistency in PPP agreements signed by different agencies and we thought there was a problem. And so, we approached the ministry of justice and sought for a uniform template for drafting PPP agreements that every MDA will adapt on a case-by-case basis. So, we came up with a model agreement that was launched about four months ago by the attorney general of the federation. That has helped people to understand risk sharing very well and to better prepare concession agreement. And this has also help ICRC in reviewing agreements faster. Before now, we used to have brief case investors; people that just come, get an MoU from you or any MDA with a lot of liabilities on government. In the new concession agreement, we have in place, MoUs have no place in PPPs anymore and that has reduced the challenges of failed projects.
There is often a tension between attracting investors and ensuring value for money for taxpayers. When those two objectives conflict, where does the ICRC draw the line?
One of the cardinal principles of risk sharing, PPP is value for money. Value-for-money analysis is one of the key considerations in ICRC. I may come in as an investor to build infrastructure, but of what cost is it to the country and its citizens? Let me give you a typical example. I remember when they wanted to build a road from second Niger bridge. When they did the financial analysis vis-avis the recovery of investment, I think they arrived at N20,000 that people will pay as toll to cross the bridge. That’s the only way to make it viable for people to be able to recover their money within a timeframe.
I remember when they came here, ICRC was of the opinion that this would not work; you can’t tell me that because I want to cross from Asaba to Onitsha, I should pay N20,000 – that was then anyway. And we advised that why don’t you use that money to build roads from Shagamu to Asaba and bring down the toll from that end…so with that, yes, their project got to increase but the burden on the people will be less. You have other resources of recovering your money and you will also create a bigger infrastructure.
And another thing we use to ensure value for money; we can say okay, it is a 20-year concession and this is what it could cost you to deliver it. We could say okay, from our affordability study and willingness to pay, it will not work, why not look at other things to do – advertisements on the roads, create transit park on the road to reduce your cost…we can say 20 years you are charging N5,000, why don’t you charge N3,000 and your tenure will be 30 years? With that people can afford it. Because there must be that value for money. You must arrive at an equilibrium.
So, talking about the investor desire to recoup investment and the users getting maximum utility for that service at an affordable price, we must check that equilibrium and balancing.
Two things we do when on our business case is stakeholder consultation, affordability and willingness to pay
If you are building an infrastructure from here, you must make me understand what I stand to gain and stakeholder buy-in that reduces the hostility and resistance to such infrastructure.
Now, let me explain – there is the affordability, can I afford it? Even if they can afford it, are they willing to pay? From the proper stakeholder consultation, you would have taken care of those aspects before you get to signing your agreement because that is one of the requirements we put in our guidelines for business case. So, there’s been a learning curve; for every project, I and my team sit down together to say what are the lessons learnt from this so that what we got right here, we try to enhance and what we got wrong, we try to fix it in the next project. We need to understand the traffic projections, the income profile of the users, the proposed charges and the extent to which people are likely to use the facility.
These considerations help us determine whether a project is sustainable. The challenge is to strike a balance between the investor’s expectations and the expectations of the people who will use the infrastructure. The principle of risk-sharing remains central to PPP arrangements.
The parties must understand the risks associated with a project and agree on how those risks will be managed. The contract must clearly state each party’s obligations and the consequences of failing to meet them. There are established rules governing negotiations and the preparation of agreements. The purpose is to ensure that risks are considered before the agreement is concluded, rather than leaving the parties to resolve disputes after the project has commenced.
The investor wants a reasonable return on investment, while the public expects an affordable and reliable service. We must ensure that the contractual arrangement takes both interests into account. Under PPPs, there is always room for renegotiation and amendments and these are the issues I have addressed in modern concession agreement that we just released.
Unsolicited proposals can help government identify projects it may not have the resources to originate. How will you prevent unsolicited PPPs from becoming a route for politically connected interests to obtain strategic public assets?
First, I want to clarify a misconception about PPPs and concessions. There is sometimes a belief that when the government enters into a concession agreement, it is effectively handing over national assets to private interests. That is not necessarily the case. But let me say that in concession, government remains the owner of the asset. A concession generally grants a private party the right to operate, develop or manage an asset for an agreed period, subject to the terms of the contract. It does not automatically transfer ownership of the underlying public asset. The purpose is to enable the asset to generate greater value, improve service delivery and attract investment. As I said earlier, value for money is a critical consideration.
If a person submits a proposal and meets the established criteria, the proposal should be assessed on its merits. The identity of the individual or the person’s connections should not determine the outcome. In essence, ownership in a concession asset is government. Whether you say politically connected or whichever name you call them, we look for investors to come and optimize that existing asset of government. However, that does not mean the proposal will automatically be accepted. It must undergo the required scrutiny. The process begins with the relevant MDA, which must examine the proposal and determine whether the idea addresses a genuine public need. We consider whether the project aligns with government priorities and whether there is a clear justification for pursuing it. The proposal must then be assessed for its viability, affordability and bankability. Viability asks whether the project makes sense and can deliver the intended service. Bankability considers whether the project can attract the necessary financing and generate the revenue required to sustain it. Affordability examines whether the government or the intended users can reasonably meet the financial obligations associated with the project. A project may be viable in technical terms but still fail because it is unaffordable or cannot attract financing.
For instance, a project may promise significant benefits, but if the cost of the service is too high for users, it may not generate sufficient demand. In that situation, the project would require a different structure or may not proceed.
We also examine the capacity of the investor. We want to know whether the investor has the financial resources, technical competence and relevant experience to implement the project.
We may examine the investor’s track record, financial position and ability to mobilise the required funding. These safeguards help prevent proposals from being used simply to secure access to public assets without a credible plan for delivering the promised infrastructure. The process is not designed to penalise a person because of their identity or connections. If an investor has the financial capacity and technical ability to execute a project, the proposal should be assessed fairly.
However, the same standards apply to everyone. If by coincidence, the investor that has money is politically connected, we don’t look at that, we look at whether he is an investor…if he is connected but meets the technical capacity required, we would not rule you out of transaction. It is open.
A proposal must demonstrate that it offers value to the country, is consistent with applicable laws and regulations, and can be implemented under a sound contractual arrangement.
The objective is to create an open process while maintaining the necessary level of scrutiny.
There are examples of public assets that could generate greater economic value if they were developed or managed more efficiently. For instance, an airport may have underutilised land or facilities that could support additional commercial activity. A private investor may propose to develop such facilities, improve the airport’s operations and generate additional revenue.
But the proposal must be assessed in terms of its feasibility, the investment required, the expected benefits and the implications for the government. The fact that a project involves a public official does not mean it should automatically be rejected. Equally, the fact that a private investor has submitted a proposal does not mean the government should automatically accept it.
The central issue is whether the arrangement is in the public interest and whether the investor can deliver the promised results.
We must also recognise that Nigeria has a substantial infrastructure deficit. The government cannot be expected to finance every project from its own resources. The private sector has capital, expertise and operational capacity that can help address this gap. The challenge is to structure projects properly so that the private sector can invest while the public continues to receive the intended benefits. We need to distinguish between projects that can operate on a purely commercial basis and those that require some form of government support because of their public-service obligations. The objective is not simply to attract private money. It is to attract investment into projects that are economically justified, financially sustainable and beneficial to the country.
It is not whether you are politically connected that is the issue, it is what infrastructure are you uplifting for Nigeria and that is what we look at. If by coincidence, the investor that has money is politically connected, we don’t look at that, we look at whether he is an investor…if he is connected but meets the technical capacity required, we would not rule you out of transaction. It is open. Let me ask you one question: if you wake up one morning and they said there is a high-speed train from Abuja to Lagos that takes four hours and they said it was built by a certain politician, and that it will cost you N10,000 to get to Lagos – will you be interested in who that person is?
You have advocated greater acceptance of unsolicited PPP proposals, subject to a Swiss Challenge process. How transparent will that process be, and how can competing investors be confident that they will receive a fair opportunity?
The Swiss Challenge is not a Nigerian invented model. It is a global thing. It originated from India, which was having the same challenge like Nigeria at the time it was done. It is an Indian method of doing procurement. At the end of the day, we want to bring infrastructure to Nigeria. The important question is how to adapt the process to Nigeria’s circumstances.
Some infrastructure projects are very expensive, and preparing a proposal can require considerable time and resources. The process must therefore be designed to ensure transparency and fairness without creating unnecessary obstacles to investment.
We must assess each transaction on a project-by-project basis. There is no single approach that will be suitable for every project. Our responsibility is to ensure that the arrangement protects the government’s interests, allows investors a fair opportunity and provides a sustainable basis for delivering the infrastructure.
Let me give you an example involving an airport. Suppose an airport operator wants to expand an existing airstrip into a more developed airport, including the construction of facilities such as a control tower. The proposal might involve using underutilised land or developing facilities that would increase the airport’s commercial potential.
However, we must first examine whether the project is viable. Is there sufficient demand? Will the investment generate enough revenue? Does the proposal make economic sense? Can the investor finance and operate the facility? If the surrounding area has little traffic or the proposed facilities cannot attract sufficient users, the project may not be sustainable, regardless of the investor’s enthusiasm.
On the other hand, a proposal to develop an airport or other infrastructure facility could make sense where there are a clear demand and a credible plan for generating revenue.
The same principle applies to hospitals and other social infrastructure. We must consider the needs of the surrounding population, the existing facilities, the proposed investment and the public benefits.
We cannot simply say that a project is unsuitable because it was proposed by a private investor. Nor can we assume that it is suitable merely because an investor is willing to provide the money. The proposal must be examined on its merits.
We cannot simply copy the infrastructure-financing models of developed countries and apply them wholesale to Nigeria.
Countries have different infrastructure needs, financial capacities and economic circumstances.
In developed economies, some infrastructure projects may be commercially viable because the supporting networks and alternative facilities are already in place. Nigeria, however, has a substantial infrastructure deficit that must be addressed urgently. We need to develop our own capacity and design processes that reflect our circumstances while maintaining appropriate standards. For example, international best practices may recommend alternative routes where a road is being developed under a PPP arrangement. But the feasibility of providing an alternative route will depend on the existing road network and the project’s circumstances. We must therefore adapt the applicable principles to the local environment rather than applying them mechanically. The objective is to develop sound procedures that attract investors and enable the country to address its infrastructure needs.
Nigeria has significant investment opportunities. We need to create an environment in which private investors can participate in delivering infrastructure while ensuring that projects are properly structured and sustainable.
So, we cannot use that template as it is, we must adapt it to suit our own narrative. That is what we are doing here; we are developing our processes in line with our realities not compromising standards to create PPPs that will attract investors. Nigeria is a country of investors. If we embrace PPP holistically and with the potential, we have no business borrowing money. PPPs can be answer to the fiscal deficits we have here and that is what we have been doing here, trying to push investments into all sectors. The way the economy is today, there is no way we won’t leverage private sector to drive the infrastructure and service and to reduce fiscal deficit.
You have been in office for two years. What would you consider the biggest obstacle preventing investors from committing their money to Nigeria? Is it currency risk, political uncertainty, high costs or something else?
I will surprise you. Even recently, we have continued to receive proposals from investors interested in putting money into Nigeria. A lot of people who want to come in. I am encouraged by the level of interest. There are many reasons for this. Nigeria has significant opportunities, and investors recognise the potential to make money in the country. However, let me return to what I said earlier about policy certainty. In the past, investors faced concerns about their ability to bring money into the country and repatriate their capital and returns. The FX regime was a concern for investors before now. If an investor brings in $10 million, the investor needs confidence that the investment can be managed under a predictable framework and that the proceeds can be repatriated in accordance with the applicable rules. That was one of the issues we needed to address. That was the first problem that the President Bola Tinubu solved in his first one hour of assuming office.
Also, local financing has increased; the capacity of our local institutions to fund infrastructure has greatly increased. The Zengeru Hydro Power project that was done, about $700 million was raised locally to pay for it. Second, we have also seen improvements in the country’s infrastructure and the broader investment environment. These developments help strengthen confidence in the economy. Compared with the past, I believe we are making progress. It would be difficult to argue that the country has not made improvements in the conditions required to attract investment. That does not mean all the challenges have disappeared. One of the problems we have identified is the lack of sufficient coordination among government agencies. The different ministries, departments and agencies must work together rather than operate as separate entities pursuing unrelated objectives. We are all part of the same government, and investors often have to interact with several agencies to execute a single project. If those agencies do not cooperate, the process becomes unnecessarily difficult. We need stronger coordination, better communication and a common understanding of the government’s investment priorities. Another area we are focusing on is compliance with contractual obligations. We have observed instances in which parties do not fully meet the obligations they have accepted under PPP agreements. A contract may specify what each party is required to do, but the expected benefits will not materialise if those obligations are not fulfilled. The ICRC therefore needs to strengthen monitoring and compliance to ensure that parties meet their contractual commitments. This is important for investor confidence. Investors must be able to rely on the agreements they sign, while the government must be assured that private partners will deliver the infrastructure and services they have undertaken to provide. We are working to strengthen this aspect of our mandate.
One thing is to sign an agreement and another is to enforce a muti-compliance aspect of it because where there are weak regulations, people try to find a way to avoid carrying out their obligation. At ICRC, one of the areas we want to work on going forward is the multi-compliance aspect of our mandate because we noticed there have been lapses on that side. People just enter agreements and not being held to the obligations they are committed to. Parties and investors will be tasked on delivering on agreed obligation. I will say that the obstacles we have is the huge infrastructure deficit that exists. What you call obstacles are opportunities for investors. And those barriers are being broken by the present government.
Nigeria has recently seen major PPP activity in airports, ports, roads, power, customs, healthcare and digital infrastructure. Which sectors do you believe offer the strongest investment opportunities that have not yet received sufficient attention?
I believe there are opportunities across the economy. However, we must recognise the scale of the infrastructure deficit. We have allowed the gap to widen for a long time, and that is one reason the efforts being made today may not always appear sufficient. The country has a large amount of infrastructure to build, and the existing deficit is substantial. If you consider the infrastructure needs identified in various studies, energy and transportation account for a significant proportion of the requirements. These are critical sectors because improvements in transportation can open up economic opportunities, connect markets and facilitate the movement of goods and people.
Energy is equally important because reliable power supply supports industrial activity, investment and productivity. I would therefore prioritise energy and transportation as areas where investment could make a substantial difference. These sectors also illustrate why the government must work with the private sector. The infrastructure needs are too large for the government to finance everything on its own. We need private investment to help bridge the gap and reduce the pressure on public finances.
The $3.2 billion Nigeria Customs Modernisation Project is projected to generate more than N176 billion for the Federal Government over 20 years. How does the ICRC independently verify such projections, and what happens if the anticipated revenues fail to materialise?
When you say anticipated revenue, remember I told you that PPP is a partnership. That expected revenue is not achieved does not mean the project has failed. As a party, you need to know why it had failed. Is it that government didn’t perform its own obligation? If that is the case, you are not going to blame the investor. And is it that the investor is cutting corners? Of course, our monitoring and compliance will ensure that. Now, the project is what we are proud of; it is from Nigeria to Africa. At the time the project was being developed and the agreement was being signed, it was an important milestone for Nigeria. It was an opportunity to demonstrate that the country could develop major infrastructure through a structured partnership with private investors.
There were discussions about whether the project could be developed successfully in Nigeria and whether the necessary expertise and capacity were available locally. However, we believed it was important to demonstrate what Nigeria could achieve. Let me shock you, today, the project has surpassed its expectation in terms of projected revenue just few years into it. It has attracted attention because of its scale and the role it can play in the country’s economy. On the question of monitoring, there is a structured process. An independent engineer was appointed for the project, and reports are submitted quarterly to ICRC for our review and monitoring and that they have been doing. The project is therefore subject to periodic assessment, which allows the relevant authorities to review its progress and performance. That is how the monitoring process works.
Projects such as the Katsina-Ala hydropower plant, Ikere Gorge Dam and Farin Ruwa are expected to contribute to Nigeria’s power supply. Given the history of stalled power projects, what makes the current PPP structures different?
Okay. We have three basic sectors in the power ecosystem – generation, transmission and distribution, now I’ll take you back to what was done. In the distribution, the model that was adopted though ICRC was not involved; it was a core investor sale – it was a sale of those distribution companies.
It was in PPP, and it was in concession, but government still retained 40 per cent shares in discos. And those shares are being held on behalf of government by the Bureau of Public Enterprise (BPE), the agency of government that mid-wife that privatization as at then.
Now the transmission was being headed by Manitoba initially but that was reversed and under government custody today. The hydros then were Shiroro, Kainji and Jebba were all concessioned and that’s the area I want to speak on because that is the one I participated in. I can tell you that all the hydros the ICRC participated in with our expertise and with our direction and guide are working excellently well. Because as at the time Kainji and Jebba were concessioned, I think Kainji was operating less than about 100 megawatts as at the time. Today, it is over 1,000 megawatts. They have even exceeded what the transmission national grid can take. So, I think, in generation, we don’t have a problem, though as a country we need to generate more but we need to expand our transmission lines. And at the disco level, we need to have a balanced ecosystem.
And for the Ikere Gorge, this was a dam that was built in 1982 during the Shagari administration; it is a six-megawatts and has the potential to expand to over 150 megawatts – which was concessioned and handed over early this year.
It will shock you that despite the money that was spent to build that dam, it had never worked for one day. Some machines are still unpacked; they are still in their cartons as they were in 1982…So, we’re waiting for that to come up on board, and those are additional power to the national grid.
Let me tell you that Mr. President is very concerned about the power sector because this was his specific promise he made to Nigerians, and I can tell you it is a promise he will fulfil.
You have called for stronger PPP collaboration across ECOWAS. What practical regional infrastructure projects could Nigeria pursue with neighbouring countries through PPPs, and what is currently preventing more cross-border projects?
Well, when we talk about ECOWAS, you’re talking about the West African state corridor. There are a lot of things involved. Do we have a trade between Nigeria and ECOWAS countries? (7:20) When you go to Europe, you can run through the European countries by trade in policy, character, infrastructure deficit even in terms of fiscal challenge. We have a strong synergy, if for example, I have a contractor that builds good roads for me in Ghana, why can’t we tap into that expertise? Why can’t we have infrastructure that is built to serve West Africa. That’s what Dangote just did in East Africa – the Dangote refinery is located in Kenya but the three countries in West Africa, he’s giving them 10 per cent each…why can’t we come together and say as brothers in West Africa, let’s have a common infrastructure that serves all through PPP. I know we are trying to build the Nigeria-Seme-Ghana-Abidjan Road corridor using PPP which is on the pipeline. This is the kind of synergy that can exchange lots of opportunities among those countries. And then the West African gas pipeline between Nigeria and Morocco that is ongoing by the Africa Union
So, what I am advocating is that we can come up with a template that can be adopted by West African countries because of our similarities and peculiarities. And with that, we’ll lower the cost of infrastructure and extend commerce and leverage on our comparative advantage and we can build a stronger West African economy…we need knowledge sharing between West African countries to build stronger ties so governments can endorse an ECOWAS-backed PPP projects for the countries.
How do you strike a balance between family and work, and how do you relax?
Now, I’ll say this.I have been part of this system for a long time, and over the years, I have learnt that there is always more to be done. I used to complain that things could be done better, but I have come to realise that when you are given an opportunity to serve, you must make the most of it.
When I reflect on the confidence the President has placed in me, I see it as a responsibility. You must justify that confidence, remain focused on the vision and ensure that you leave a legacy you can be proud of. That belief drives me, even when the work becomes demanding.
I am also conscious of the legacy I want to leave behind and how history will remember my contribution. That is what motivates me to keep going. When I get tired, I remind myself of what we need to accomplish. It is not just about me; it is about the responsibility I have been given and the results people expect from us.
As for balancing work and family, it is challenging. I do not particularly enjoy parties or that kind of social life. I prefer spending whatever time I have with my family. When I go on vacation, I want to be with them and make the most of those moments.
I also try to communicate with my family as often as I can, even when work makes it difficult to spend as much time with them as I would like. Sometimes, the demands of the job mean that I cannot be there as much as I should, but I make an effort to stay connected.
Ultimately, I see the work as a responsibility and an opportunity to make a difference. Rather than complain about the demands, I draw motivation from the need to deliver results and justify the confidence reposed in me.