Lagos-Calabar Coastal Highway: Procurement Questions Put Tinubu Government Under Scrutiny

The Lagos-Calabar Coastal Highway project has drawn renewed scrutiny over its procurement process, construction costs and financing arrangements, with questions emerging about transparency and the use of public funds. The concerns centre on whether the Federal Government has provided sufficient documentation to demonstrate that the project offers value for money.

The Public Procurement Act 2007 establishes open competitive bidding as the general rule for procuring goods and works, subject to exceptions provided by law. Section 24(1) states that procurements by public entities shall be conducted through open competitive bidding. The law is designed to promote competition, transparency and accountability in government contracts, although the use of an alternative method does not automatically establish illegality if the required legal conditions and approvals are met.

The Lagos-Calabar Coastal Highway is a proposed 750-kilometre transport corridor intended to connect Lagos with Cross River State along Nigeria’s southern coastline. Works Minister Dave Umahi has put the project’s cost at about ₦4 billion per kilometre, with the overall cost estimated at around ₦15 trillion and completion projected within eight years. Another estimate cited in the source places the cost at $11 billion. Hitech Construction Company, owned by the Chagoury brothers, is handling the initial Lagos section under an Engineering, Procurement, Construction and Financing arrangement.

Construction began in 2024, and 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 increased the reported financial commitments. The scale of the expenditure prompted former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar to question the procurement process, project costs and financing arrangements, and to demand the release of relevant contracts and supporting records. Umahi defended the arrangement, describing it as a counter-funding structure rather than the conventional public-private partnership model discussed in some public commentary.

Questions have also emerged over engineering challenges and changes to the proposed route. 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, as well as existing infrastructure that required adjustments. In October 2026, he said President Bola Tinubu had directed that parts of the proposed alignment should follow the existing East-West Road from Ondo State into Edo State because of difficult terrain and flooding concerns. The minister maintained that the coastal highway remained a 750-kilometre project, with the East-West Road reconstruction treated as an additional undertaking.

These developments have raised questions about whether the original feasibility studies, geotechnical investigations, environmental assessments and engineering designs adequately accounted for the conditions along the route. However, unexpected construction difficulties do not by themselves establish negligence or wrongdoing, and the available information does not prove that the highway has been abandoned. Assessing the impact of the changes requires access to the original and revised route maps, technical reports and approved contract variations.

Atiku renewed his demand for the disclosure of contracts, payment records, route plans, feasibility studies and approvals for contract changes on October 12, 2026. He also questioned reports of a proposed loan of up to US$20 billion allegedly connected to the project. The source does not establish whether such a borrowing proposal was formally submitted, approved or conclusively linked to the highway. The Federal Government would need to clarify whether the proposal exists and, if so, explain its purpose, terms and relationship to existing project obligations.

The financial implications of the route changes also remain unclear. Rerouting could reduce expenditure by eliminating difficult stretches of new construction, but alternative sections could increase costs if they require extensive reconstruction, drainage or flood-protection work. A reconciled financial statement showing original contract sums, payments made, approved variations, work removed from the original scope, revised costs and borrowing obligations would help Nigerians assess the project’s overall cost and value for money. The government could also publish relevant procurement approvals, financing agreements, environmental assessments and technical reports to support public scrutiny.

The Freedom of Information Act 2011 provides a framework for citizens to request information held by public institutions, subject to applicable exemptions. The National Assembly also has an oversight role in examining public expenditure and scrutinising any proposed borrowing. An independent technical and value-for-money audit could assess whether the initial estimates were reasonable, whether the engineering challenges could have been anticipated and whether the revised alignment represents an economical solution.

As the 2027 election approaches, the coastal highway is likely to remain part of the debate over the Tinubu administration’s infrastructure record. Supporters of the project may point to its potential to improve transport links, support trade and reduce logistics costs, while critics may focus on procurement, financing and transparency questions. The eventual public assessment will depend on construction progress, the evidence disclosed, the project’s cost and its economic benefits.

The Federal Government is being urged to distinguish the coastal highway’s expenditure from the cost of reconstructing the existing East-West Road and provide regular updates on spending, completed work and outstanding obligations. The discovery of difficult terrain and the need for design changes do not, on their own, prove that the contract was improperly awarded. However, the scale of the project makes disclosure of its technical and financial records important for accountability. The central question remains whether the government can demonstrate that the highway is being delivered lawfully, efficiently and in the public interest.