Lagos-Calabar highway: Makinde demands audit of N15trn project

The Lagos-Calabar Coastal Highway is a major Federal Government road project with a stated contract value of N15 trillion. The article focuses less on the highway’s full design than on a recent change to its route. That change matters because it may affect the project’s engineering basis, environmental impact, cost and execution plan.

The organisation demanding scrutiny wants the government to explain why the route changed and whether the contract sum will be reduced. It specifically called for an independent engineering assessment of the Ondo realignment, an alternative-route analysis and the publication of related cost implications. Minister David Umahi attributed the change to climate change and environmental challenges.

The article does not provide the original and revised routes in detail. It also does not say whether construction has stopped or how much the realignment will add or subtract. The immediate implication is a call for public disclosure, technical review and a comprehensive audit before Nigerians can assess the project’s value and planning.

N15 trillion is the project’s stated contract value, making it a very large commitment of public money. The figure matters because any route change could alter construction costs, payment obligations and the project’s overall execution plan. The organisation argues that Nigerians should know whether the contract sum will be reduced after the realignment.

The article does not state how much the government has spent so far. Instead, the organisation demanded publication of payment records and an audit covering total cost, expenditure to date and the execution plan. It also requested the cost implications of alternative routes and the Ondo realignment.

This leaves a key financial question unanswered. Without an official spending figure, readers cannot compare the N15 trillion contract value with actual payments or assess possible overruns. The organisation says disclosure would help clarify accountability, while the Federal Government’s response and any audit findings would determine what happens next.

David Umahi, the Works Minister, said climate change and environmental challenges made the route realignment necessary. In practical terms, that explanation points to concerns that changing environmental conditions or sensitive areas could affect where the road should be built. The reason matters because route decisions shape safety, engineering requirements, environmental effects and cost.

The Makinde-Daura Presidential Campaign Organisation challenged the explanation as vague. It argued that the change raises questions about whether adequate technical and environmental assessments were completed before the project was awarded. The group therefore requested the relevant engineering assessment, an alternative-route analysis and the cost implications of the revised route.

The article does not provide the specific environmental risks, studies or data behind the minister’s statement. It also does not report a detailed government response to the demands. The immediate issue is whether the Federal Government will publish evidence that connects the stated climate and environmental concerns to the revised route.

Transparent procurement, sound design and legislative approval help show that a public project is needed, properly priced and lawfully funded. If those safeguards are missing, citizens may doubt whether the government chose the best contractor, understood the project’s risks or received value for money. That can weaken public trust.

The organisation alleges that the contract was awarded without an approved engineering design, open competitive bidding, budgetary provision or statutory appropriation. If such claims were established, possible consequences could include unclear costs, redesign expenses, payment disputes, delays and weak oversight. The article itself does not establish that these allegations are true.

The financial concern is especially serious because the stated project cost is N15 trillion and the article does not give spending to date. The organisation wants procurement and payment records, an independent assessment and a full audit. Those disclosures could clarify responsibility, expose problems if they exist and guide decisions about the project’s future.

The Federal Government is responsible for planning, awarding, funding and overseeing the highway, while the Works Ministry manages its technical and administrative side. David Umahi is the minister who explained the route change. The contractor is responsible for carrying out the awarded work under the contract, although the article does not name that contractor.

The National Assembly’s responsibility is to provide statutory appropriation for federal spending. Public procurement rules also generally require a fair, competitive process and proper records before a contract is awarded. The organisation alleges those safeguards were absent, but the article does not independently confirm the claim. It also raised questions about links involving the contractor’s corporate group and another firm.

President Bola Tinubu leads the government being challenged. Felix Hassan Hyat, the organisation’s director-general, demanded records, assessments and an audit while linking the dispute to the 2027 election. The article presents the organisation’s allegations and demands, but does not report findings by an audit body or a final institutional ruling.

The article presents road construction as a legitimate need but questions the priority given to this particular project. The organisation says Nigeria needs infrastructure, while several existing federal roads remain in poor condition. That creates a competing choice: continue concentrating resources on the coastal highway, or direct more funding toward repairing and maintaining roads already in use.

A practical comparison would examine safety, traffic needs, economic benefits, environmental effects, readiness and cost. For the highway, the organisation wants route studies, an engineering assessment and a comprehensive audit. For existing roads, decision-makers would need evidence on their condition, repair costs and urgency. The article does not provide those comparisons.

The current dispute therefore concerns both accountability and priorities. Rising food prices, transport costs, healthcare expenses and university tuition are cited as pressures on Nigerians. The organisation argues that spending decisions should reflect those pressures, but the article does not state that the government has chosen an alternative funding plan.

Public procurement is the process government uses to buy works, goods or services. It normally requires clear specifications, fair competition, evaluation and records. Budgetary provision means setting aside an amount for an activity in an approved government budget. Statutory appropriation is the legislature’s legal authorisation for government to spend public funds for specified purposes.

For a road project, procurement rules should guide contractor selection, while an approved design helps define the work and its price. A budget should contain funding for the project, and the National Assembly’s appropriation should legally authorise that spending. These steps create checkpoints before and during payments. They also help auditors and citizens trace decisions.

The organisation alleges that the highway lacked an approved engineering design, open competitive bidding, budgetary provision and statutory appropriation when awarded in 2024. The article does not independently establish those allegations. It does show why the group is demanding procurement and payment records, a technical assessment and a comprehensive audit.