Lagos-Calabar Coastal Highway? The Beat Has Changed Mid-Dance as Tinubu Government Changes Route and Name
Oh my God! So, it is no longer simply the Lagos-Calabar Coastal Highway? Has the beat changed in the middle of the dance?
In a country where accountability is taken seriously, major public infrastructure projects should be guided by transparency, consistency, and clear communication with the citizens whose money is being spent.
The Lagos-Calabar Coastal Highway, one of the flagship infrastructure projects of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s administration, is once again raising questions following developments involving its name and proposed route.
The Federal Government has announced that the highway will henceforth be known as the President Bola Tinubu Coastal Highway, with Minister of Works David Umahi explaining that the decision was intended to recognise Tinubu’s longstanding vision for the project.
The ministry has also disclosed that parts of the highway’s alignment have been redesigned to address engineering difficulties and accommodate existing and planned infrastructure.
The original project was presented as a major coastal transport corridor spanning approximately 700 kilometres across Nigeria’s southern states, intended to connect Lagos with Calabar in Cross River State while improving transportation, trade, tourism, and economic activity along the coast.
However, the recent disclosures about route adjustments have prompted legitimate questions about whether the project is being delivered according to the original plan and what these changes mean for communities along the proposed corridor.
In October 2026, Umahi defended the diversion of sections in Ondo State, citing difficult terrain, deep pits, unsuitable soil conditions, and the high cost of construction along the original alignment. He also disclosed that President Tinubu had directed that parts of the continuation into the Niger Delta should follow the existing East-West Road.
The government has offered engineering and cost considerations as explanations for these decisions. Nevertheless, citizens are entitled to ask for detailed information about the revised route, the communities affected, the project's total cost, and the implications of the changes for the original objectives.
There is also the question of naming a major public infrastructure project after a sitting president before the entire project has been completed. While the government has explained its reasons, Nigerians can reasonably debate whether such a decision should take precedence over delivering the project and providing clear information about its implementation.
The central issue is accountability. When a project is announced with a particular name, route, scope, and economic promise, any significant change should be clearly explained, supported by published technical assessments, and accompanied by transparent financial disclosures.
In a saner nation, where public officials are held to the highest standards of accountability, serious questions about the management, planning, and execution of a project of this magnitude would trigger independent scrutiny. Where evidence establishes serious misconduct or failure of duty, those responsible should face the appropriate consequences, including resignation where warranted.
President Tinubu and Minister David Umahi owe Nigerians clear explanations about the changes, the costs, and the extent to which the revised plans remain consistent with the project's original promises.
The beat may have changed in the middle of the dance, but Nigerians deserve to know who changed the music, why it changed, and who will pay for it. Shameful questions cannot be answered with slogans; they require facts, transparency, and accountability.
Sources: Federal Ministry of Works; The Guardian Nigeria; Vanguard.
0 Comments