Lagos-Calabar coastal highway: When transparency takes the back seat, Nigerians pay the price

As the 2027 general election approaches, President Bola Tinubu must explain not only the ambition behind the Lagos–Calabar Coastal Highway but also the procurement process, cost implications and financial commitments associated with the project.

The Public Procurement Act of 2007 was not drafted in a vacuum. It was a deliberate response to decades of opaque deal-making, inflated contracts, and abandoned projects that had become the hallmark of Nigerian governance. Section 24(1) of the Act is unambiguous: “all procurements of goods and works by all procuring entities shall be conducted by Open Competitive Bidding”. The framers understood that only through open, competitive processes could the government ascertain true costs, evaluate technical competence, and protect the public purse from the twin evils of corruption and incompetence.

That law, however, exists today largely in the breach. Nowhere is this breach more glaring—and more politically consequential—than in the award of the Lagos-Calabar Coastal Highway, a project that has become a metaphor for the Tinubu administration’s approach to governance: grand announcements, changed promises, and a bill the public is forbidden to inspect.

Meanwhile, the public procurement laws exist for a reason: to promote competition, transparency, accountability and value for money in the award of government contracts. Yet, the circumstances surrounding the Lagos–Calabar Coastal Highway have raised questions about whether these principles have been adequately upheld.

The Lagos-Calabar Coastal Highway is a roughly 750-kilometre road that Works Minister Engr. Dave Umahi says will cost about ₦4 billion per kilometre. The minister has put the total at around ₦15 trillion, to be completed within eight years. Another estimate puts the cost at $11 billion, under a private contract awarded to Hitech, a company owned by the Chagoury brothers, who are close associates of the president.

The issue is not whether Nigeria needs modern highways. It does. The question is whether projects funded with public resources are being planned, awarded and executed in ways that protect the public interest.

The Public Procurement Act 2007, particularly Section 24, establishes open competitive bidding as the general rule for procuring goods and works, subject to exceptions provided by law. Competitive bidding enables government to compare technical proposals, assess contractors’ capacity and determine whether proposed prices represent value for money.

Although the absence of open bidding does not automatically establish illegality, any alternative procurement method must have a lawful basis and satisfy the applicable approval requirements.

For a project of the coastal highway’s magnitude, these safeguards are especially important. Comprehensive feasibility studies, geotechnical investigations, environmental impact assessments (EIA) and engineering designs should inform the project’s scope, cost and construction risks before contractual commitments are made.

The coastal highway controversy

The Lagos–Calabar Coastal Highway is a proposed approximately 750-kilometre transport corridor intended to connect Lagos with Cross River State along Nigeria’s southern coastline, improving connectivity and supporting trade and economic development.

Construction commenced in 2024 on the president’s second anniversary in office, with Hitech Construction Company handling the initial Lagos section under an Engineering, Procurement, Construction and Financing arrangement.

The first phase of Section I, covering approximately 47.47 kilometres, was reported to have a contract sum of about ₦1.068 trillion. Subsequent contracts for other sections have pushed the reported commitments into trillions of naira.

The scale of the expenditure prompted former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar to question the procurement process, project costs and financing arrangements. He demanded disclosure of the relevant contracts and supporting documents.

Works Minister Dave Umahi defended the arrangement, explaining that it involved a counter-funding structure rather than the conventional public-private partnership model discussed in some public commentary.

However, Nigerians cannot independently assess the merits of these competing positions without access to the underlying contractual and financial records.

The Federal Government should disclose the applicable procurement approvals, financing agreements, contractual obligations, payment records and the basis for determining the project’s costs. Such disclosure would help establish whether the arrangement protects the public interest.

When engineering challenges change the equation

The controversy has intensified following disclosures about unexpected construction difficulties and changes to the highway’s design.

In September 2025, Umahi disclosed that the government had spent ₦15 billion on excavation and design modifications on the Lagos section. He cited the discovery of a decades-old refuse dump more than 10 metres deep and extending approximately two kilometres, alongside existing infrastructure that required design adjustments.

In October 2026, the minister also disclosed that President Tinubu had directed that parts of the proposed alignment should follow the existing East-West Road from Ondo State into Edo State, citing difficult terrain and flooding concerns.

The minister subsequently maintained that the coastal highway remained a 750-kilometre project and that the East-West Road reconstruction was an additional undertaking rather than a replacement for the coastal corridor.

These clarifications matter. Without the revised route maps and technical documents, it would be premature to conclude that the highway has been abandoned or that every affected section is being rerouted.

Nevertheless, the developments raise a legitimate question: how comprehensively were the terrain, environmental conditions and engineering risks investigated before the original contracts were awarded?

No preliminary investigation can identify every underground obstruction, and unexpected engineering challenges do not automatically establish negligence or wrongdoing. But a project involving trillions of naira requires rigorous preparation to minimise avoidable cost overruns.

If sections of the original alignment are replaced by existing roads, the government should disclose the work removed from the original scope and any corresponding savings. Where reconstruction, drainage or flood-protection works become necessary, their costs should be separately identified.

A change in route must produce a corresponding change in the financial accounting.
Who bears the financial burden?

The reported contract sums for the initial sections demonstrate the scale of the government’s commitments. However, these figures should not be mistaken for the final cost of the entire 750-kilometre corridor.

On October 12, 2026, Atiku renewed his demand for disclosure of contract documents, payment records, original and revised route plans, feasibility studies and approvals for contract variations. He also questioned reports of a proposed loan of up to US$20 billion allegedly connected to the project.

That reported loan must be treated cautiously: the available report did not establish that a US$20 billion borrowing request had been formally submitted, approved or conclusively linked to the highway.

The government should clarify whether such a proposal exists and, if so, disclose its purpose, terms, repayment obligations and relationship to existing contracts.

The financial consequences of the route changes also remain central. Rerouting could reduce costs by eliminating difficult stretches of new construction, but it could equally increase expenditure if alternative sections require substantial reconstruction.

The net effect cannot be established without comparing the original and revised bills of quantities, contract variations, payment certificates and financing agreements.

The government should publish a reconciled financial statement showing the original contract sums, payments made, approved variations, work removed from the original scope, revised costs and any existing or proposed borrowing obligations.

These are basic requirements of responsible fiscal management, not unreasonable demands from political opponents.

Why Atiku’s demand deserves attention

Atiku’s political interests are obvious, but that does not invalidate the questions he has raised. In a democracy, arguments should be assessed on their merits, not dismissed solely because they come from the opposition.

If the contracts were lawfully awarded, the engineering investigations were adequate and the revised plans are economically justified, publishing the supporting documents would help establish those facts.

Conversely, if the records reveal weaknesses, disclosure would allow the government to address them before they become more expensive.

The Freedom of Information Act 2011 also provides a framework through which citizens can request information held by public institutions, subject to applicable exemptions.

A government confident in its decisions should not treat demands for information about major public expenditure as an attack on its authority.

The political implications for Tinubu in 2027

The coastal highway could become a defining infrastructure achievement for the Tinubu administration. Its scale fits the government’s argument that substantial investment is necessary to improve connectivity and stimulate economic growth.

However, infrastructure projects can become political liabilities when the public perceives a gap between official promises and accountability.

First, unresolved questions and the original route, procurement process and subsequent design changes could undermine the administration’s infrastructure narrative. Voters will want to know not only what has been built but also whether it was delivered efficiently and at a reasonable cost.

Second, economic hardship makes public expenditure particularly sensitive. Nigerians struggling with food prices, transport costs and other living expenses may reasonably demand evidence that trillions of naira are being spent prudently.
A highway that reduces logistics costs and stimulates commerce could generate substantial benefits. But those benefits must be weighed against the cost of construction and any associated borrowing.

Third, the opposition could make the project a campaign issue. Atiku and other political opponents may use unresolved procurement and financing questions to challenge the administration’s claims of responsible governance. Their arguments will be more persuasive if supported by documentary evidence rather than political rhetoric alone.

Finally, prolonged controversy could weaken public confidence in procurement institutions and legislative oversight. The perception that major contracts are awarded without sufficient competition or accountability can damage trust even before any specific allegation is proven.

The electoral consequences are not predetermined. They will depend on the government’s response, the evidence disclosed, construction progress and the project’s eventual economic benefits.

The way forward

The Federal Government should publish the original and revised engineering designs, feasibility studies, environmental assessments, route maps and relevant technical reports.

It should also disclose the contracts, the legal basis for the procurement method, applicable approvals, original contract sums and authorised variations.

An independent technical and value-for-money audit should establish whether the original estimates were reasonable, whether the engineering challenges could have been anticipated and whether the revised alignment offers the most economical solution.

The National Assembly should exercise its oversight responsibilities, scrutinise the financial records and ensure that any proposed borrowing receives appropriate examination.

Most importantly, the government should distinguish the coastal highway’s costs from those of reconstructing the existing East-West Road and publish regular reports on expenditure, work completed and outstanding obligations.

The Lagos–Calabar Coastal Highway must not become a detour around accountability. Rather, it should become a valuable national asset. But the promise of infrastructure cannot replace the discipline of good governance.

The discovery of difficult terrain and the need for design changes do not, by themselves, prove that the contract was improperly awarded. They do, however, make transparency about the project’s technical and financial records even more imperative.

President Tinubu should ensure that Nigerians receive a comprehensive account of the procurement decisions, original and revised costs, financing arrangements and implications of the route changes.

As the 2027 election approaches, the highway could strengthen the President’s record if it is delivered efficiently, economically and transparently. If questions about its cost and procurement remain unanswered, it could instead become a symbol of the accountability deficit his opponents seek to expose.

Nigeria does not merely need more roads. It needs a system in which every contract withstands scrutiny, every naira can be accounted for and every major project serves the public interest.

Anything less risks turning a route to national development into a detour around public accountability.

Adebayo Abubakar writes from Ilorin, Kwara State. He can be reached via 08051388285 or marxbayour@gmail.com