The coastal road questions

THE controversy surrounding the realignment of the Lagos-Calabar Coastal Highway has reopened an important question about governance in Nigeria: does the announcement of a monumental project signify sound planning, or has political grandstanding become a substitute for painstaking preparation? It is expedient that the Federal Government provide extraordinary explanations to its extraordinary undertaking of providing infrastructure of high financial magnitude. The government needs to  justify its expenditure and demonstrate that the people’s interests remain paramount. It owes Nigerians a comprehensive explanation of the controversial realignment of a flagship infrastructure project reportedly costing ₦15 trillion. Engineering flexibility is legitimate, but it must never become a convenient alibi for defective planning, fiscal irresponsibility and political arrogance.

Flagged off in May 2024 as a 700-kilometre corridor intended to unlock economic opportunities across Nigeria’s coastal states, the highway was presented as a transformative intervention in transportation and regional development. Yet, the reported decision to redirect approximately 104 kilometres of the Ondo-Edo stretch towards the existing East-West Road has raised legitimate questions about the project’s original design, the communities it will serve, and the financial consequences of the alteration. Minister of Works, David Umahi, reportedly explained that President Bola Tinubu had approved the use of the existing East-West Road for the affected stretch, including a proposed 45-kilometre bypass. Sections of the road would be raised by approximately two metres to address flooding and climate-related risks.

Roads may require realignment when detailed investigations uncover challenges such as unstable soil, deep-water channels, flooding hazards or geological conditions that make the original route impracticable or prohibitively expensive. Responsible governments must retain sufficient flexibility to accommodate such discoveries rather than waste public funds pursuing an unworkable design. Preliminary studies may therefore be followed by more extensive investigations as a project progresses. However, the decisive question is whether the difficulties now being invoked were genuinely unforeseeable or whether the government failed to undertake adequate preparatory work before committing public resources on such a colossal scale. Flexibility is a virtue in engineering; inadequate preparation is not. The distinction must not be blurred.

Grand projects demand rigorous feasibility studies, realistic cost estimates, environmental assessments and transparent procurement procedures before political enthusiasm overtakes professional judgment. Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, has urged President Tinubu to direct the Federal Ministry of Works to explain the approved route and disclose the coastal communities that will benefit from, or be bypassed by the revised alignment. The Human Rights Writers Association of Nigeria (HURIWA) has also questioned the project’s original planning and demanded accountability. Their concerns deserve a substantive response. The people of Ilaje and other coastal settlements in Ondo State, alongside communities in Delta State, depend heavily on fishing, waterways transportation and related economic activities. If a highway conceived to connect coastal communities is substantially redirected inland, the government must explain how the revised alignment will fulfil its original development objectives. Road construction success should be measured by the economic opportunities it creates, the communities it connects and the burdens it removes from ordinary citizens. Infrastructure that bypasses its intended beneficiaries risks becoming a monument to expenditure rather than an instrument of inclusive development.

Also troubling are the allegations that appropriate National Assembly budgetary and public procurement procedures were neglected in committing such an enormous sum to the project. Questions have also been raised about the contractor selection process and possible political connections. These claims require documentary investigation and must not be treated as established facts. Nevertheless, the scale of the expenditure makes transparent scrutiny imperative. The reported incident in which the minister mocked a journalist who questioned the adequacy of the feasibility studies is equally regrettable. Public officials must understand that the press does not owe government unquestioning applause.

READ ALSO: I could have benefited from multiple exchange rates if retained – Tinubu

If the realignment is technically sound, the publication of the relevant studies, costing and approvals should strengthen public confidence. If serious deficiencies emerge, the country deserves corrective action. The question of national priorities is no less urgent. Nigerians shuttling between the South and Abuja continue to endure exhausting journeys on deteriorating highways with dangerous potholes, damaged bridges and inadequate maintenance exposing motorists to delays, financial losses and avoidable risks. Why should the government prioritise another ambitious road project while existing transportation arteries remain in distress? This is not an argument against the coastal highway. Nigeria needs modern infrastructure, and a properly executed coastal corridor could promote commerce, tourism, employment and national integration. But the comfort and safety of Nigerians must not be sacrificed to the political appeal of monumental construction. A government must distinguish between what is spectacular and what is urgent.

The legislature’s apparent inability to demonstrate oversight in this controversy is another source of concern. The National Assembly must not surrender its constitutional responsibilities to executive convenience and partisan loyalty. Checks and balances are indispensable safeguards against waste, arbitrariness and the abuse of public trust. The government must now answer three questions unequivocally. First, what specific technical findings necessitated the realignment, and why were these difficulties not adequately resolved during the original planning? Second, which coastal communities stand to benefit from or lose out under the revised route? Third, will the modified project remain within the projected ₦15 trillion expenditure, or will taxpayers be required to provide additional funds despite the soaring poverty in the land? These questions require published technical assessments, transparent cost breakdowns, procurement documentation and a credible explanation of the revised project’s economic benefits. The government must also clarify how it intends to protect communities whose livelihoods depend on access to the coast.

As William Shakespeare observes in Hamlet, “The readiness is all.” For a government entrusted with the nation’s resources, readiness means preparation, foresight and institutional competence. It cannot mean announcing a grand undertaking first and explaining fundamental difficulties afterwards. The media and civil society must intensify investigative and constructive journalism, monitoring the expenditure, scrutinising official claims, and insisting on evidence. Nigerians, in turn, must continue to express their displeasure through lawful democratic channels. Neither criticism nor scrutiny should be mistaken for disloyalty to the ruling class. Ultimately, the Lagos-Calabar Coastal Highway controversy is about the quality of governance, the integrity of public expenditure and the government’s willingness to account to the people. A road may be realigned for sound engineering reasons, but public accountability must never be diverted. The Federal Government owes Nigerians the truth, supported by evidence, not merely explanations framed by political convenience.