…Between engineering possibilities, economic realities and the Niger Delta’s long quest for development
By Wisdom Otobo
The controversy surrounding the proposed Lagos-Calabar Coastal Highway has evolved beyond a disagreement over road construction. It has become a debate about national priorities, the cost of infrastructure, the development needs of the Niger Delta and the responsibility of political leaders to look beyond their immediate constituencies when discussing projects of national significance.
At the centre of the unfolding debate are two former governors from Nigeria’s South-South region: Donald Duke of Cross River State and Douye Diri of Bayelsa State. Their opposing positions have brought renewed attention to a project that promises to transform coastal transportation but has also attracted questions about its feasibility, affordability and overall economic value.
Duke, a former Cross River governor and presidential candidate of the Peoples Redemption Party (PRP) in the 2027 general elections, has questioned the wisdom of extending the highway through the difficult terrain of the Niger Delta. Diri, the incumbent governor of Bayelsa State, has rejected that argument, insisting that the region’s swampy environment is not an insurmountable obstacle to modern road construction.
The disagreement has since acquired a political dimension, particularly after Duke described Diri as a “local champion” for allegedly viewing the project from the limited perspective of his state rather than considering Nigeria’s wider economic circumstances.
Yet beneath the exchange of words lies a more important question: should the coastal highway be judged primarily by the engineering challenges of its route, the government’s ability to finance it, or the long-term development opportunities it could create for communities that have remained isolated for decades?
The answer may require a more comprehensive national conversation than the political exchanges witnessed so far.
DUKE’S ARGUMENT: CAN NIGERIA AFFORD THE AMBITION?
Duke’s criticism centres on the financial implications of the project and the technical difficulties associated with constructing a major highway through the Niger Delta’s wetlands, mangrove forests and riverine communities.
During an interview on Arise Television’s The Morning Show, the former governor questioned whether the proposed route could realistically be completed at an affordable cost. He argued that the region’s terrain would require extensive engineering works, including numerous bridges, making the project considerably more expensive.
His argument was not necessarily that roads could never be built across Bayelsa or other coastal states. Rather, he questioned whether the financial demands of the proposed highway could be justified in a country grappling with competing development needs.
Duke also challenged the project’s designation as the Lagos-Calabar Coastal Highway, expressing doubts about whether the proposed route would eventually reach Calabar as envisaged. He questioned the reported consideration of diverting part of the highway towards the existing East-West Road, asking whether the alternative route had been adequately considered from the beginning.
These are questions that deserve serious examination.
Nigeria faces enormous demands on public resources. Healthcare, education, electricity, security, agricultural development and the rehabilitation of existing roads all require substantial investment. A government operating under financial constraints must therefore demonstrate why a major infrastructure project deserves priority over competing needs.
Duke’s argument raises the issue of opportunity cost: what other essential projects might be delayed or underfunded when substantial public resources are committed to one major undertaking?
His concern is particularly relevant in a country where citizens frequently complain about deteriorating infrastructure and inadequate public services despite successive administrations announcing ambitious development programmes.
However, questioning affordability is not the same as conclusively establishing that a project is economically unviable. That determination requires reliable cost estimates, transparent procurement information, engineering assessments, traffic projections and a credible analysis of the economic benefits expected over the highway’s lifetime.
The central issue, therefore, is not simply whether the highway is expensive. It is whether the expected benefits justify the total cost and whether the government can complete it without undermining other essential national priorities.
DIRI’S RESPONSE: THE SWAMPS ARE NOT AN EXCUSE
Governor Diri’s response was rooted in Bayelsa’s own experience with road and bridge construction.
Through his Chief Press Secretary, Daniel Alabrah, the governor expressed disappointment that a former governor from the South-South region would question the feasibility of the highway because of the Niger Delta’s terrain.
Diri argued that the challenges associated with wetlands and mangrove environments had not prevented his administration from undertaking major road projects across Bayelsa.
He cited the Nembe-Brass Road, the Sagbama-Ekeremor-Agge Road and the Yenagoa-Oporoma Road as examples of infrastructure projects traversing difficult terrain. He also referred to the 630-metre bridge across River Nun at Angiama in Southern Ijaw Local Government Area.
According to the governor, these projects demonstrate that road construction across swamps and waterways is possible when appropriate engineering solutions are applied.
His position reflects a longstanding concern among communities in Bayelsa and other parts of the Niger Delta: that the region’s difficult geography should not become a permanent justification for its infrastructural isolation.
For generations, many riverine communities have depended on boats and waterways for transportation. Access to hospitals, markets, schools and government services remains difficult in some areas, while the movement of agricultural produce and other goods can be expensive and time-consuming.
A properly designed coastal highway could improve access, facilitate trade, connect communities and open new economic opportunities.
Diri’s argument is therefore not without merit. The existence of difficult terrain does not, by itself, prove that a road cannot be built. Modern engineering provides solutions for crossing wetlands, rivers and unstable ground, although the appropriate design depends on the conditions encountered along each section of the route.
Nevertheless, the governor’s examples do not automatically settle the debate about the coastal highway’s financial viability.
The cost of constructing a road through a particular swamp depends on several factors, including its length, soil characteristics, environmental conditions, bridge requirements, drainage systems, maintenance needs and the quality of the proposed design.
A project can be technically achievable and still be excessively expensive relative to its expected benefits.
That distinction is crucial. Diri has made a case for engineering possibility and regional development, while Duke has raised questions about national affordability and competing priorities. A responsible assessment must consider both.
THE ‘LOCAL CHAMPION’ REMARK AND ITS POLITICAL IMPLICATIONS
The controversy became more personal when Duke dismissed Diri’s defence of the highway, describing the Bayelsa governor as a “local champion”.
Duke argued that the governor was looking at the project from the perspective of Bayelsa State, whereas he was considering the broader interests of Nigeria.
The remark has introduced an uncomfortable question into the debate: when does defending the development interests of one’s state become narrow regionalism, and when does it represent a legitimate contribution to national policy?
In a federation as diverse as Nigeria, political leaders are expected to defend the interests of their constituencies while recognising the country’s wider economic realities. These responsibilities should not be mutually exclusive.
Diri’s support for the highway can reasonably be understood as an argument that the Niger Delta deserves better connectivity and should not be denied major infrastructure because of its challenging terrain.
Duke’s opposition, meanwhile, can be understood as a demand that the federal government justify the project’s cost and demonstrate that its benefits outweigh the financial and environmental implications.
Neither position should be dismissed merely because of the political identity of the person advancing it.
The more productive approach would be to test both arguments against verifiable evidence.
If the highway is economically beneficial, the government should be able to demonstrate that through transparent assessments. If the proposed route is unnecessarily expensive or inferior to viable alternatives, critics should be able to establish that through credible engineering and economic analysis.
Calling a governor a local champion does not answer the question of whether the highway is affordable. Equally, describing the project as financially impractical does not establish that the Niger Delta should remain without adequate road infrastructure.
Public debate must go beyond labels.
THE NIGER DELTA’S DEVELOPMENT QUESTION
For the Niger Delta, this controversy touches a sensitive nerve.
The region occupies a strategic position in Nigeria’s oil and gas economy, yet many of its communities continue to face inadequate transportation, environmental degradation, limited economic opportunities and infrastructure deficits.
Bayelsa, in particular, presents a difficult development landscape. Its extensive waterways, wetlands and dispersed settlements make conventional road construction challenging and costly.
But those challenges also make infrastructure planning especially important.
A coastal highway that effectively connects communities and integrates local economies could help reduce transportation costs, improve access to markets and encourage investment in agriculture, fisheries, tourism, logistics and other productive activities.
For a region whose natural resources have contributed substantially to national revenue, the argument for better infrastructure is compelling.
However, the promise of development should not become a substitute for proper planning.
A road does not automatically produce prosperity simply because it is long or expensive. Its economic value depends on whether people and businesses use it, whether it connects productive centres, whether communities can access it and whether complementary investments are made in electricity, security, water, healthcare and other essential services.
There are also environmental questions that deserve careful attention.
The Niger Delta’s wetlands and mangrove ecosystems support fisheries, biodiversity and the livelihoods of many coastal communities. Major construction projects in such environments require appropriate environmental assessments, effective drainage, erosion control and measures to protect sensitive habitats.
Where land reclamation or sand-filling activities are involved, the government should provide clear information about land acquisition, compensation, environmental safeguards and the protection of community interests.
The objective should be to deliver infrastructure without creating avoidable environmental damage or dispossessing local populations.
For Bayelsa and the wider Niger Delta, the best outcome is not merely the construction of a highway. It is the creation of infrastructure that improves people’s lives while protecting the natural systems on which many communities depend.
THE QUESTION OF COST AND NATIONAL PRIORITIES
One of Duke’s strongest arguments concerns the federal government’s spending priorities.
Nigeria’s infrastructure needs are enormous, while public resources remain limited. Major projects must compete with the funding requirements of healthcare, education, security, power generation and the maintenance of existing roads.
Duke questioned the wisdom of pursuing an expensive coastal highway when other sectors face pressing financial demands.
That argument deserves a factual response from the federal government.
What is the highway’s current total projected cost? How much has been committed and released? What financing arrangements are in place? What are the projected completion dates? What economic benefits are expected, and how will those benefits be measured?
These questions should not be treated as hostility towards development.
Indeed, transparency is essential to sustaining public confidence in major infrastructure projects. Nigerians should be able to understand the financial commitments involved and the reasons the government believes the investment is justified.
The federal government should also explain the relationship between the coastal highway and existing transportation corridors, including the East-West Road.
If the new highway is intended to complement existing roads, that relationship should be clearly established. If sections of the proposed route have been revised, the reasons should be made public alongside the technical and financial implications.
A project of this scale should not depend solely on political assurances or criticism from opponents. It should be supported by publicly accessible evidence.
Supporters of the highway, including Diri, should welcome such scrutiny because a transparent process would strengthen the case for the project if the evidence confirms its value.
Critics, including Duke, should equally be prepared to acknowledge the project’s potential benefits if credible assessments demonstrate that it offers a sound long-term investment.
The national interest is better served by evidence than by political loyalty.
CAN THE COASTAL HIGHWAY REDEFINE THE REGION?
The proposed 750-kilometre Lagos-Calabar Coastal Highway is intended to traverse nine coastal states: Lagos, Ogun, Ondo, Edo, Delta, Bayelsa, Rivers, Akwa Ibom and Cross River.
Its scale makes it one of the most consequential transportation proposals affecting Nigeria’s southern coastline.
If completed as planned and supported by the necessary connecting infrastructure, the highway could improve movement between coastal states, encourage commercial activity and create opportunities for communities that have historically been difficult to reach by road.
But the benefits will depend on the final alignment, construction standards, accessibility, connections to local roads and the economic activities along the route.
There must also be a clear distinction between a highway that passes through a state and one that meaningfully serves its people.
A road can cross a territory without substantially improving the lives of nearby communities if access roads are inadequate, local settlements are bypassed or the economic benefits are concentrated elsewhere.
This is why the interests of Bayelsa, Rivers, Delta and other Niger Delta states must be properly incorporated into the planning and implementation of the project.
Local communities should be consulted. Environmental risks should be assessed. Land acquisition should be transparent. Compensation claims should be handled fairly, and the government should explain how the project will connect with existing economic centres.
The coastal highway must be judged not only by the distance it covers but also by the opportunities it creates.
BEYOND POLITICAL POSITIONS
The exchange between Duke and Diri is taking place against the background of preparations for the 2027 general elections. Duke’s presidential ambition makes his assessment of federal spending politically significant, while Diri’s defence of the project reflects his administration’s development priorities and its position on the importance of infrastructure to the Niger Delta.
Political context, however, should not be allowed to obscure the substance of the debate.
Duke is entitled to question the cost and viability of a major public project. Diri is equally entitled to defend infrastructure he considers essential to his state and region.
The responsibility of the federal government is to provide the evidence needed to determine which arguments are better supported.
The controversy has also attracted the intervention of former Bayelsa East senator Ben Murray-Bruce, who defended Diri and the highway. Murray-Bruce argued that major infrastructure investments can be expensive but may deliver lasting benefits, and he recalled that Duke had previously praised the vision behind the coastal road.
His intervention reinforces the point that the debate is no longer simply about engineering. It concerns competing interpretations of economic prudence, national development and the role of ambitious infrastructure in shaping a country’s future.
Yet the most important voices should not be limited to former governors, politicians and political commentators.
The people who live along the proposed route deserve to know what the project means for their land, livelihoods, businesses and communities. Taxpayers deserve to know how public funds are being spent. Investors deserve clarity about the infrastructure and economic opportunities that may emerge.
A meaningful national debate must accommodate all these interests.
CONCLUSION: THE ROAD MUST STAND THE TEST OF EVIDENCE
The disagreement between Donald Duke and Douye Diri presents Nigeria with an opportunity to examine how major infrastructure decisions should be made.
Duke has raised legitimate questions about affordability, engineering challenges and competing national priorities. Diri has drawn attention to the Niger Delta’s longstanding infrastructure deficit and challenged the assumption that swampy terrain makes major road construction impractical.
Both sets of concerns deserve serious consideration.
The federal government must demonstrate that the Lagos-Calabar Coastal Highway is technically sound, economically justified, environmentally responsible and financially sustainable. It must also provide clarity on the route, funding, construction standards and expected benefits.
At the same time, the Niger Delta should not be condemned to infrastructural neglect because its geography makes development more complicated. Difficult terrain calls for careful engineering, transparent planning and responsible investment, not automatic abandonment.
The real issue is not whether Donald Duke or Douye Diri wins the argument. It is whether Nigeria can build infrastructure that delivers measurable public value without sacrificing fiscal responsibility or environmental protection.
If the coastal highway can meet those tests, it could become an important instrument of regional integration and economic development. If it cannot, the government must be prepared to review its plans and consider better alternatives.
Ultimately, the highway must be more than a political symbol or an engineering ambition. It must be a project whose benefits can be demonstrated to the people expected to finance it and whose development value can be felt by the communities it is intended to serve.
For the Niger Delta, the stakes are particularly high. The region needs roads, bridges, jobs and economic opportunities. But it also needs accountability, sound planning and development that puts people first.
That is the standard by which the Lagos-Calabar Coastal Highway should be judged—and the standard by which the arguments of its supporters and critics must ultimately stand or fall.
