Umahi vs. Makinde: Transparency Battle Erupts Over Lagos-Calabar Highway Cost
In Nigeria’s latest infrastructure headache, Oyo State Governor Seyi Makinde has publicly challenged Minister of Works David Umahi, alleging evasion and lack of clarity over how much the ambitious Lagos-Calabar Coastal Highway project will cost per kilometre. With viral video footage, sharp exchanges, and growing calls for accountability, this dispute has become one of the hottest public policy debates in recent weeks.
What Sparked the Clash
The catalyst was a televised interview earlier this week in which Rufai Oseni, an anchor on Arise TV, pressed Minister Umahi to provide a detailed cost breakdown of the highway—specifically, how much each kilometre will cost. Umahi responded sharply, dismissing the request as “elementary,” claiming that each segment of the road will cost differently, and implying that the layout is too technical for the anchor to follow. He described himself as a “professor of practice” in engineering, contending that such queries reflect a misunderstanding of civil engineering realities.
This exchange quickly went viral, drawing sharp criticism from Governor Makinde, who argued that the public deserves transparency on government expenditures—especially infrastructure financed with taxpayers’ money. He questioned why, if state governments can disclose their contracts and cost‐per‐kilometre figures, the federal government could not do the same.
Umahi’s Position: Cost, Procurement, and Counterclaims
Minister Umahi has repeatedly insisted that the Lagos-Calabar Coastal Highway will cost about ₦4 billion per kilometre, not ₦8 billion as alleged by his critics—especially former Vice President Atiku Abubakar. For the full 700 kilometre stretch, Umahi puts the total at approximately ₦2.8 trillion.
He has defended the procurement process, stating that the contract was awarded on a “counter-funding” basis, not through a Public-Private Partnership (PPP), contrary to allegations suggesting preference or impropriety. The contractor, Hitech Construction Company Ltd, was selected for its demonstrated expertise in concrete paving, particularly in coastal areas with high water table challenges.
Umahi also noted that design changes—arising from environmental assessments and unforeseen ground conditions—have forced modifications that could affect costs. A particularly egregious example was the discovery of a decades-old refuse dump over 10 metres deep, spanning two kilometres, which delayed the project by over four months.
Makinde’s Demand: Average Cost & Public Accountability
In contrast, Governor Makinde insists that the public deserves a clear “average cost per kilometre,” as well as more detailed financial transparency on how government funds are used. In defending the journalist’s question, he cited road projects under his administration as precedents:
The Oyo-Iseyin Road, approximately 34-35 km, cost around ₦9.99 billion, averaging about ₦238 million per km.
The Iseyin-Ogbomoso Road, at ~76 km, cost about ₦43 billion, averaging ₦500 million per km, even with two significant bridge structures included.
These, Makinde says, serve as proof that public works can and should be transparent in cost metrics, and that evading simple cost-per-kilometre questions is disingenuous.
Key Stakes & Broader Implications
This clash is more than just political sparring. It raises several important issues for Nigerians and for governance at large:
1. Public Trust & Transparency: With federal budgets already under scrutiny, citizens are demanding clarity on how multi-trillion-naira contracts are awarded, monitored, and executed.
2. Infrastructure Quality vs. Cost: The highway is to be built with concrete, not asphalt, selected for durability and suitability to coastal terrains. Such design choices can drive up upfront costs but may deliver long-term savings. Whether N4 billion per km is reasonable depends on how well the extra cost buys resilience.
3. Procurement & Accountability: Questions remain about how contracts were awarded—was there competitive bidding or restrictive bidding? What role do counterpart funding arrangements play? Makinde’s criticisms reflect a broader concern about whether procurement norms were fully followed.
4. Impact of Design and Environment: Soil, existing infrastructure, and environmental hazards—including old refuse dumps and submarine cables—can force unexpected design changes, which in turn affect cost and timelines. These are realistic constraints that administrators must plan for and communicate clearly.
What Remains Unresolved
Despite the back-and-forth, several questions remain unanswered:
What is the average cost per kilometre once allowances are made for structural variation, environmental remediation, and design changes?
How much of the initial ₦1.06 trillion allocated for the pilot phase has truly been disbursed, and how transparent is the spending?
What mechanisms are in place for citizen oversight, audit, and periodic reporting on progress and expenditure?
Could the cost escalate further as more sections are constructed, especially in challenging geography?
Final Analysis
The Umahi-Makinde dispute spotlights a critical tension in Nigeria’s infrastructure agenda: how to balance ambitious, transformative projects with robust accountability and clear communication. For citizens, knowing whether a kilometre of coastal highway costs ₦4 billion or more matters—not just as an academic number, but as a yardstick for value, procurement integrity, and public stewardship of resources.
If Minister Umahi responds with detailed cost breakdowns, timelines, and audit trails, it would go a long way toward restoring confidence. If not, the controversy will likely deepen and provide ammunition for critics calling for greater oversight of federal infrastructure expenditures.
0 Comments