Article

Lagos-Calabar Coastal Highway: The Road That Raised More Questions Than Hope

Published

6 minutes ago

October 16, 2026

By Sam Agogo

When the Federal Government unveiled the Lagos-Calabar Coastal Highway, Nigerians were told they were witnessing the beginning of one of the most ambitious infrastructure projects in the country’s history.
It was presented as a game-changer.
The project promised to connect Lagos to Calabar through a massive coastal corridor stretching across several states. It was projected as a road that would stimulate commerce, encourage tourism, improve transportation, create jobs and unlock economic opportunities along Nigeria’s coastline. Government officials described it as a legacy project, one that would stand as evidence of visionary leadership for generations to come.
For many Nigerians, it sounded like the kind of bold intervention the country desperately needed.
After years of complaints about poor infrastructure, decaying roads and inadequate transport networks, a modern coastal highway appeared to offer a glimpse of something different.
But somewhere between the grand announcement and the actual implementation, doubt began to creep in.
Today, what should have been a celebration of national development has increasingly become a conversation about transparency, accountability, planning and public trust.
The highway itself has not collapsed. Construction continues in several locations. Government officials insist that the project remains on course.
What appears to be collapsing, however, is public confidence.
The questions surrounding the project have become almost as enormous as the highway itself.
The first concern relates to the project’s staggering cost.
The figures associated with the Lagos-Calabar Coastal Highway have consistently generated debate. Depending on the estimate being cited, the project is expected to cost roughly ₦15 trillion or more.
For a country battling inflation, poverty, unemployment, a depreciating currency and mounting debt obligations, that figure was always going to attract scrutiny.
And it should.
Democracy demands scrutiny.
Public money deserves scrutiny.
Projects financed through public resources deserve scrutiny.
Unfortunately, rather than easing public concerns through complete transparency, the project appears to have generated even more questions.
Ordinary Nigerians still struggle to understand precisely how much the highway will cost in its final form.
Many cannot understand why different explanations about cost often emerge from different quarters.
Others question the logic behind committing such vast sums to a single project when numerous federal roads across the country remain in terrible condition.
These are not anti-development questions.
They are legitimate public concerns.
A citizen who asks how trillions of naira are being spent is not an enemy of progress.
If anything, such citizens are performing the very duty democracy expects from them.
The government may sincerely believe that the project will eventually justify its enormous cost.
That position is understandable.
What is difficult to understand is why a project of such scale continues to operate under a cloud of uncertainty regarding certain aspects of its procurement and financing.
Transparency should have been built into the project from day one.
Every major contract document should be publicly accessible.
Every significant variation should be disclosed.
Every major financial commitment should be easy for citizens to verify.
The larger the project, the greater the obligation to provide information.
Instead, what Nigerians frequently encounter are disagreements, allegations and conflicting narratives.
The result is predictable.
Suspicion flourishes where information is limited.
Even more troubling is the controversy surrounding the award of the contract itself.
From the moment construction was announced, critics began asking questions about competitive bidding.
Why was such a major project awarded in the manner that it was?
Were alternative bids considered?
What criteria guided the decision?
How was value for money established?
These questions refuse to disappear because comprehensive answers have never been placed before the Nigerian public in a manner capable of ending the debate once and for all.
Government officials may be convinced that every procedure was properly followed.
That is not enough.
Public confidence is not sustained by assurances alone.
It is sustained by evidence.
The burden of proof rests with those spending public resources.
The burden does not rest with citizens demanding accountability.
Then there is the human cost of the project.
Infrastructure development often requires sacrifice.
Roads are constructed.
Properties are acquired.
Communities are affected.
Governments across the world face these realities.
However, successful governments recognise that people are not obstacles to development.
People are the purpose of development.
That distinction matters.
Across portions of the Lagos-Calabar Coastal Highway corridor, homes, businesses and investments have been affected.
Some property owners accepted the outcome reluctantly.
Others resisted.
Several complained that compensation was either inadequate or delayed.
Many argued that the value assigned to their properties failed to reflect the true scale of their losses.
One of the most symbolic examples involved Landmark Beach in Lagos.
The demolition generated nationwide attention because it was not merely a structure being removed.
It represented years of investment, employment opportunities, tourism activity and economic enterprise.
Whether one agrees with the government’s decision or not, the episode exposed a broader concern.
Was sufficient consultation carried out?
Were all alternatives exhausted?
Was the public interest balanced fairly against private investments?
These questions continue to linger.
What makes the situation even more concerning is the apparent lack of comprehensive public data regarding the overall impact of the project.
How many homes have been affected?
How many businesses have been displaced?
How many workers lost their source of income because of demolitions?
How many communities have been directly impacted?
Surprisingly, clear nationwide figures remain difficult to find.
Given the scale of the project, this absence of information is remarkable.
One would expect that a development of such significance would be accompanied by detailed public records covering every aspect of its social impact.
After all, development is not measured solely by kilometres of concrete.
It is also measured by the lives affected in the process.
The issue of safety has also emerged periodically.
Reports of fatal accidents connected to areas of construction have raised concerns.
While any major infrastructure project carries safety risks, every loss of life deserves serious attention.
When workers and road users are exposed to danger, the public deserves clear information about safety measures, incident investigations and preventive actions.
Again, transparency is the key.
Citizens should not have to rely on scattered reports to understand what is happening around a project funded partly by their resources.
Yet perhaps no controversy has done more to raise eyebrows than the growing discussion about rerouting and redesign.
This is where the conversation becomes particularly uncomfortable.
The project was announced as a coastal highway.
The word “coastal” was not incidental.
It was central to the identity of the project.
The economic arguments supporting the initiative were based largely on its capacity to connect coastal communities, stimulate coastal commerce and open up coastal opportunities.
Today, portions of that original vision appear to have changed.
Government officials have defended some route adjustments as unavoidable engineering decisions.
According to official explanations, difficult terrain, deep pits and other technical challenges made aspects of the original alignment problematic.
Every reasonable person understands that engineering realities sometimes require adjustments.
No responsible government should ignore technical advice merely to satisfy public relations considerations.
However, another question immediately arises.
Why were these engineering realities not fully identified before the project was unveiled?
If terrain challenges were significant enough to warrant major route alterations, should they not have been thoroughly examined during the planning stage?
If certain sections presented extraordinary engineering risks, should those realities not have been known before billions of naira entered the equation?
Planning is not a luxury.
Planning is the foundation of successful infrastructure development.
When substantial redesigns occur after implementation begins, citizens are entitled to wonder whether adequate preparatory work was conducted.
That is not cynicism.
It is common sense.
The concern extends beyond engineering.
It touches the credibility of government projections.
When citizens are repeatedly told one thing and later observe something different, confidence inevitably suffers.
Trust, once weakened, becomes difficult to rebuild.
This is particularly important because the Lagos-Calabar Coastal Highway is not an ordinary road project.
It is a national symbol.
The government has invested enormous political capital in promoting it.
Supporters regard it as evidence of bold leadership.
Critics regard it as evidence of misplaced priorities.
The truth may lie somewhere between those positions.
But even supporters should recognise that transparency strengthens projects.
It does not weaken them.
A government confident in its decisions should welcome scrutiny.
A government certain of its figures should publish them.
A government proud of its processes should expose them to public examination.
Secrecy has never strengthened public trust.
Openness does.
Unfortunately, what Nigerians have witnessed in recent years is a growing credibility gap between official assurances and public perception.
The gap is becoming increasingly difficult to ignore.
Every new controversy widens it further.
Every unanswered question deepens public suspicion.
Every missing detail invites fresh speculation.
This is dangerous because public confidence is one of the most important ingredients in the success of any large-scale national project.
Infrastructure is not built with concrete alone.
It is built with trust.
Citizens must trust that contracts are awarded fairly.
Citizens must trust that costs are justified.
Citizens must trust that compensation processes are equitable.
Citizens must trust that route changes are based on technical necessity rather than hidden considerations.
Once trust begins to evaporate, even genuinely good decisions become difficult to defend.
The Federal Government still has an opportunity to correct this.
The solution is straightforward.
Publish everything.
Publish the contracts.
Publish the financial commitments.
Publish the engineering assessments.
Publish the route modifications.
Publish the compensation data.
Publish the implementation timelines.
Publish the independent evaluations.
In a democratic society, information should not have to be extracted through controversy.
It should be volunteered in the interest of accountability.
Nigerians are not asking for favours.
They are asking for answers.
These demands are especially important because future generations will ultimately bear the consequences of decisions being made today.
If the project succeeds, future generations will celebrate it.
If it fails, future generations will pay for it.
Either way, history will deliver its judgment.
History is often kinder to transparent governments than secretive ones.
History is often kinder to accountable leaders than defensive ones.
History rewards results, but it also rewards honesty.
The Lagos-Calabar Coastal Highway may yet become a transformational achievement.
That possibility remains alive.
The completed project could stimulate trade.
It could encourage investment.
It could improve connectivity.
It could unlock economic opportunities that justify every sacrifice made along the way.
That outcome is entirely possible.
But potential is not performance.
Promise is not delivery.
Announcement is not completion.
The measure of success will not be determined by groundbreaking ceremonies, political speeches or promotional materials.
It will be determined by what ultimately emerges from the billions and trillions already committed.
As things stand today, the project remains suspended between promise and controversy.
Between ambition and accountability.
Between vision and execution.
For many Nigerians, the fundamental question is no longer whether a road is being built.
The question is whether the project is being managed in a manner worthy of public trust.
That question continues to echo because the answers remain incomplete.
Until they are fully provided, the Lagos-Calabar Coastal Highway will remain more than an infrastructure project.
It will remain a national test.
A test of transparency.
A test of accountability.
A test of planning.
A test of governance.
And perhaps most importantly, a test of whether governments can still convince citizens that grand promises will eventually become reality.
When all the concrete has dried, when all the ceremonies have ended and when all the contracts have been executed, that will be the judgment that matters.
Not the promises that were made.
But the accountability that accompanied them.