Lagos–Calabar Highway: Ilaje Group Petitions Tinubu, Demands Independent Route Review

A fresh dispute over the Lagos–Calabar Coastal Highway has intensified after a community organisation representing residents of Ondo State’s Ilaje Local Government Area petitioned President Bola Tinubu, the National Assembly and anti-corruption agencies over an alleged change to the highway’s planned coastal alignment.

Ilaje Omuro Community Connect (IOCC) is asking the Federal Government to publish the engineering studies, environmental assessments and cost comparisons used to justify the reported diversion. The group argues that an independent review is necessary to establish whether the alternative route offers better value for public money without undermining the economic prospects of communities along Ondo State’s coastline.

The petition places the controversial Ondo axis of the multibillion-naira infrastructure project under renewed scrutiny, raising questions about construction costs, environmental conditions, public accountability and the distribution of economic benefits from a highway intended to strengthen Nigeria’s coastal transport network.

Why the Ondo route has become controversial

The dispute centres on two competing descriptions of where the Lagos–Calabar Coastal Highway should pass through Ondo State and how it should connect with neighbouring coastal areas.

According to IOCC, the original survey and Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) identified a corridor entering Ondo State from Ogun State around Olosunmeta and passing through several Ilaje communities before reaching the Igbokoda waterfront and connecting towards Ode-Ugborodo and Escravos in Delta State.

The communities named by the organisation include Araromi, Abetobo, Abe-Oroyo, Ogogoro, Ayetoro, Awoye, Molutehin, Ugbonla, Ilowo, Ilepete, Obe-Enikanoselu, Obe-Rewoye, Ikorigho, Jinrinwo and Igbo-Egunrin.

IOCC estimates that the coastal stretch would cover approximately 60 to 110 kilometres. It alleges that the alternative alignment instead moves inland from Oke-Upare through parts of Edo State, including Ovia North and Ovia West, towards Gelegele before connecting to Warri in Delta State.

The organisation puts the alternative corridor at between 130 and 190 kilometres, arguing that its terrain could require substantial bridge construction and other expensive engineering interventions.

These figures represent the group’s estimates and have not been independently established by the information available for this report. A definitive comparison would require the government’s approved route maps, chainages, technical assessments and detailed project cost schedules.

What the Works Minister says about the change

Minister of Works David Umahi has defended the reported realignment, maintaining that the decision was driven by engineering considerations rather than arbitrary preference.

At a briefing in Abuja, Umahi said sections of the original corridor contained pits exceeding 100 metres in depth and lacked suitable sharp sand within a distance of 300 metres. He argued that such conditions could make construction technically difficult and increase expenditure on filling, ground stabilisation and related works.

The minister also rejected the suggestion that the government should regret its decision, insisting that the Ministry of Works had the authority to choose an alignment it considered appropriate.

His explanation places ground conditions and construction feasibility at the centre of the debate. However, the petitioners contend that the public needs access to the technical evidence supporting the decision before the competing claims can be properly evaluated.

The key question is not simply whether a road can be constructed through difficult terrain. It is whether the selected corridor performs better when engineering feasibility, environmental impact, construction and maintenance costs, travel distance, and the benefits to affected communities are considered together.

IOCC challenges the cost argument

The community organisation disputes the suggestion that the original coastal route would necessarily be more expensive or impracticable.

It estimates construction costs along the coastal alignment at between ₦4 billion and ₦7.5 billion per kilometre, compared with between ₦7.5 billion and ₦12 billion per kilometre for the alternative inland corridor.

Those estimates have not been independently verified and should not be treated as official contract rates. Actual costs would depend on the final design, soil conditions, bridges and drainage structures, land acquisition, environmental safeguards, construction materials and other project-specific requirements.

To support its argument that road construction is possible in the Ilaje area, IOCC cited the Igbokoda–Ugbonla road, which it said was built by the Ondo State Oil Producing Areas Development Commission (OSOPADEC), as well as a Ugbonla–Awoye road contract reportedly awarded by the Niger Delta Development Commission (NDDC) in 2010.

The group wants the Ministry of Works to release the feasibility studies, geotechnical investigations, soil-test results, EIA documents and comparative cost-benefit analyses for both proposed alignments.

It has also called for an independent assessment by qualified engineering professionals to determine whether the original coastal corridor could be developed using appropriate construction methods, including bridges, coastal protection and other specialised infrastructure where necessary.

Previous road projects in the area may provide useful evidence of local construction conditions, but they cannot by themselves establish whether a six-lane coastal highway is technically or financially viable along the same corridor. That determination requires project-specific engineering studies.

Coastal communities raise concerns about jobs and investment

For Ilaje residents, the dispute extends beyond the physical location of a road. It concerns whether coastal communities will have direct access to the commercial opportunities expected from a major national transport project.

IOCC argues that moving the highway away from the coastline could reduce the benefits available to communities that depend on fishing, agriculture, local trade and other coastal economic activities.

The organisation identifies Abereke, Orioke, Magbehinwa, Idiogba, Mese, Ayetoro and Awoye-Odofado among the settlements it believes could be affected.

It also highlights challenges facing parts of the area, including coastal erosion, sea incursion, inadequate road access and limited economic opportunities. The group describes Ilaje as a significant oil-producing area and estimates its coastline at between 80 and 100 kilometres.

If the highway bypasses settlements that were expected to benefit from it, the implications could extend to local transport connections, access to markets, private investment and the movement of goods. However, the scale of those effects would depend on the final alignment, connecting roads and supporting infrastructure.

The broader policy issue is how the Federal Government can balance national transport objectives with the need to ensure that communities near a major infrastructure corridor are not unnecessarily excluded from its potential benefits.

Ilaje and Itsekiri stakeholders had earlier opposed the reported diversion

The petition follows a reported meeting of Ilaje and Itsekiri leaders in Lagos on September 19, 2026. According to the account provided by the petitioners, the groups agreed to work together to press for the highway to retain its original coastal route and indicated that legal action could follow.

The reported opposition has also drawn criticism from Senior Advocate of Nigeria Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa and the pan-Yoruba socio-political organisation Afenifere, both of which have questioned the implications of moving a coastal highway inland.

The growing opposition indicates that the dispute is no longer limited to a technical disagreement between community representatives and the Ministry of Works. It has developed into a wider debate over consultation, regional development and the transparency of decisions involving major public infrastructure.

Nevertheless, opposition to the realignment does not, on its own, establish that the government’s engineering assessment is incorrect. The competing positions need to be tested against verifiable technical and financial evidence.

Group asks Tinubu, National Assembly and EFCC to intervene

In its petition, IOCC urged President Tinubu to intervene and called on the National Assembly to exercise its oversight responsibilities over the highway project.

The group also asked the Federal Ministry of Works to provide a detailed public explanation of the route decision, supported by documents that independent experts and affected communities can examine.

It called on the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) to scrutinise any credible evidence of financial misconduct, abuse of office or improper influence associated with the reported change.

The organisation stressed that its request for an investigation should not be interpreted as proof that wrongdoing has occurred. It maintained that any allegations should be examined fairly and that conclusions should rest on verifiable evidence.

IOCC further demanded meaningful consultation with affected communities, traditional institutions and civil society before a final decision is taken on the alignment.

What the Federal Government needs to clarify

The next important step is the release and independent examination of the evidence behind the competing route proposals.

A transparent review should establish the precise length of each alignment, the geological conditions along the corridors, the number and cost of major structures required, the environmental consequences and the long-term maintenance implications.

It should also explain how the alternatives compare in terms of travel time, access to coastal settlements, links to existing transport infrastructure and expected economic benefits.

Publishing these records would allow legislators, engineers, environmental specialists and community representatives to assess the government’s justification without relying solely on competing public statements.

The review should distinguish between allegations that require investigation and technical findings that can be demonstrated through project documents.

For communities along the proposed corridor, the outcome could influence future access to markets, employment opportunities and infrastructure investment. For taxpayers, it raises a separate question: whether the selected route represents a defensible balance between engineering requirements, public expenditure and national development priorities.

The Lagos–Calabar Coastal Highway is intended to be a major transport link along Nigeria’s southern coastline. Whether its Ondo alignment remains coastal or follows an inland corridor, the decision should be supported by clear technical evidence, transparent cost comparisons and meaningful public engagement.

As the petition reaches the Presidency, the National Assembly and relevant agencies, the central issue remains whether the government can demonstrate, with independently verifiable evidence, why the selected route is the most suitable option for the project and the country.