 |
| President Bola Ahmed Tinubu |
Aviation industry experts have sharply criticised the Federal Government’s plan to reimburse Yobe State N100.5 billion for the Muhammadu Buhari International Cargo Airport in Damaturu, arguing that the payment is unnecessary, sets a dangerous precedent, and reflects deeper failures in how Nigeria plans and funds aviation infrastructure.
President Bola Tinubu this week formally asked the National Assembly to approve a promissory note programme through the Debt Management Office (DMO) to settle the claim. In letters to Senate President Godswill Akpabio and the House of Representatives, Tinubu noted that the Federal Executive Council (FEC), at its second extraordinary meeting on 23 May 2023, approved the federal takeover of the airport built by the Yobe State Government and reimbursement of construction costs.
The Bureau of Public Procurement (BPP) later reviewed the project and recommended exactly N100,509,017,234.55.
The Senate has referred the request to its Committee on Local and Foreign Debts for a four-week review.
The expert’s objections go beyond the specific figure. They question the economic logic of state governments building large airports they cannot sustain, the incentives created by eventual federal bailouts, and the opportunity costs in a country where most airports lose money and fewer than 10 per cent of citizens ever fly.
A cargo airport born of ambition and politics
The Muhammadu Buhari International Cargo Airport was conceived under former Governor Ibrahim Gaidam and advanced under Mai Mala Buni. Early reports put the initial contract around N11 billion, later rising to about N18 billion with variations.
President Muhammadu Buhari commissioned it in January 2023 and it was named after him. Yobe officials presented it as a strategic logistics hub for agricultural exports—sesame, gum arabic, soybeans, meat, and dairy—from the Northeast, a region long constrained by insecurity and poor connectivity.
In March 2023, Governor Buni announced that the Federal Government had taken over ownership following a formal request by the state. The May 2023 FEC decision formalised both the takeover and the reimbursement principle. Nearly three and a half years later, the bill presented to the National Assembly is more than five times the earlier publicly cited construction cost.
That escalation—amid Nigeria’s currency devaluation, inflation, and possible additional works or claims—has fuelled quiet scepticism even among those who accept the principle of reimbursement. Recent state-level updates show continued investment: installation of ground lighting for 24-hour operations and a Service Level Agreement with the Federal Airports Authority of Nigeria (FAAN) signed in late 2025. The airport is still positioning itself for commercial and Hajj operations.
What the experts are saying
Olumide Ohunayo, aviation analyst and member of the Aviation Round Table, captures the core critique: most airports begin as social projects, but states that build facilities far larger than their economies can support end up in exactly this kind of reimbursement controversy. He warns that the expectation of eventual federal takeover creates perverse incentives—projects driven more by political timing (especially near elections) than by traffic projections or operational plans. The possibility of reimbursement, he argues, can encourage cost inflation or compromised standards. A comparison of physical delivery against claimed costs, he suggests, would be revealing.
Former Rector of the Nigeria College of Aviation Technology, Samuel Caulcrick, offers the constitutional backdrop. Aviation and airports fall under Item 3 of the Exclusive Legislative List in the 1999 Constitution. States may construct, finance and maintain airports or airstrips within their territories, but they have no authority to regulate aviation operations, control airspace, or issue licences. Those powers rest with federal agencies: the Nigerian Civil Aviation Authority (NCAA), FAAN, and the Nigerian Airspace Management Agency (NAMA). In short, states can build, but the Federal Government ultimately owns the regulatory and often the operational reality.
FAAN Managing Director Olubunmi Kuku has repeatedly cautioned states against embarking on airport projects without rigorous economic and feasibility studies. She has pointed out that less than 10 per cent of Nigerians currently travel by air.
Nigeria’s total passenger traffic reached roughly 17.9–18.8 million in 2025 (depending on the exact dataset), for a population exceeding 220 million. Only three of the 22 airports managed by FAAN are consistently profitable; the rest require cross-subsidies from the major gateways, primarily Lagos. Operational costs—security, fire and rescue, lighting, maintenance, and compliance with ICAO standards—continue whether an airport handles 10 passengers or 100,000.
The national pattern: prestige over viability
Yobe is not an outlier. Across Nigeria, state governments have collectively poured hundreds of billions of naira into airports that struggle to attract airlines or generate meaningful traffic. Examples include facilities in Ebonyi (reportedly over N63 billion with limited early operations), Bayelsa, Akwa Ibom, and others. Many have been handed over to FAAN, transferring liabilities to an already stretched federal agency. Experts such as Capt. Mohammed Gbadamasi and others have noted that only Lagos, Abuja, Port Harcourt and Kano are commercially robust; most state-built airports suffer from proximity to larger hubs, low local demand, weak tourism, and inadequate supporting infrastructure such as good roads and rail.
The Federal Government itself appears to recognise the problem. Aviation Minister Festus Keyamo has signalled plans to end subsidies for non-profitable airports and push concessions or public-private partnerships so that smaller facilities can develop non-aeronautical revenue (hotels, logistics parks, commercial zones) rather than remain permanent drains. Aviation budget allocations have tightened, reinforcing the shift away from open-ended public funding.
Original angles and structural risks
The Yobe reimbursement raises several uncomfortable questions that go beyond one airport.
First, moral hazard. If states know the Federal Government will eventually take over and pay, the discipline of rigorous cost-benefit analysis weakens. Governors gain political credit for commissioning “international” airports while shifting long-term costs onto the national treasury and, ultimately, all taxpayers.
Second, valuation transparency. Moving from publicly reported figures in the N11–18 billion range to a BPP-validated N100.5 billion claim invites scrutiny. Inflation and naira depreciation explain part of the difference, but the National Assembly’s review should demand a clear breakdown of what was built, what additional works occurred, and how the BPP arrived at its figure.
Third, opportunity cost in a low-flying nation. With passenger numbers still modest relative to population and many existing airports under-utilised, every naira spent on new or reimbursed capacity is a naira not spent on road safety, rural connectivity, power, or security—factors that often matter more for economic activity in places like Yobe.
Fourth, the cargo promise versus operational reality. Yobe’s agricultural potential is real. A functional cargo airport could, in theory, support exports. Yet cargo success depends on reliable cold chains, efficient customs, consistent airline interest, and competitive pricing. Without those, the facility risks becoming another under-used asset whose fixed costs must still be met.
What responsible policy would look like
States retain the constitutional right to build airports. That right should be matched by responsibility: mandatory independent feasibility studies, realistic traffic forecasts, transparent funding plans that do not assume federal bailouts, and prioritisation of supporting infrastructure. The Federal Government, for its part, needs clearer rules on when and how it will take over state projects—and on the standards of value-for-money applied to reimbursements.
The National Assembly’s upcoming scrutiny of the Yobe promissory note offers an opportunity to set a higher bar. Beyond approving or rejecting the N100.5 billion, lawmakers could demand greater transparency on cost validation, require operational performance metrics for any federally taken-over airport, and signal that future reimbursements will face stricter tests of economic necessity.
Nigeria does not lack airports. It lacks a coherent, demand-driven aviation strategy that distinguishes genuine catalysts for growth from expensive symbols of political ambition. The Damaturu reimbursement debate is not merely about one state’s invoice. It is a test of whether the country is prepared to stop subsidising prestige and start investing where traffic, trade, and taxpayers’ interests actually align.
Samuel O. Sulaimon is the founder and Editor-in-Chief of Naijapiz. He covers News, Sports, Finance, Faiths, Education, Politics and Technology.
Post a Comment