Experts slam Tinubu’s N100.5bn airport reimbursement plan for Yobe

Aviation industry experts have voiced strong opposition to the Federal Government's proposed N100.5bn reimbursement to the Yobe State Government for the construction of the Muhammadu Buhari International Cargo Airport in Damaturu. This move, initiated by President Bola Tinubu, has ignited a debate about the prudence of public spending and the economic rationale behind state-funded infrastructure projects.

N100.5bn Reimbursement

President Bola Tinubu formally requested the Senate's approval for a N100.5bn promissory note program, to be issued through the Debt Management Office, aimed at reimbursing Yobe State. This request follows an approval by the Federal Executive Council (FEC) on May 23, 2023, to take over the airport and cover its construction costs. The decision to reimburse a state for an airport project, particularly one of this magnitude, has drawn scrutiny from various quarters, prompting questions about the criteria for such federal interventions and their implications for national fiscal policy.

The substantial sum involved has raised eyebrows, with critics suggesting that it could set a precedent for other states to seek similar reimbursements for projects that may not align with national strategic priorities or economic realities. The process of federal takeover and subsequent reimbursement also brings into focus the transparency and accountability mechanisms in place for evaluating project costs and ensuring value for money, especially when the initial construction was undertaken by a state government.

Aviation Experts' Concerns

Experts like Olumide Ohunayo, an aviation analyst and member of the Aviation Round Table, have questioned the economic rationale behind state governments constructing airports that may exceed their operational and maintenance capacities. Ohunayo highlighted that while airports can serve as social projects, building facilities far larger than a state's economy can sustain often leads to controversies like the current reimbursement debate. He further suggested that such projects could be driven more by political considerations, particularly in the lead-up to elections, rather than by robust economic planning.

Mrs. Olubunmi Kuku, the Managing Director of the Federal Airports Authority of Nigeria (FAAN), echoed these concerns, cautioning state governments against embarking on airport projects without thorough economic and feasibility assessments. She pointed out that less than 10 percent of Nigerians currently travel by air, underscoring the limited market for many state-owned airports. The possibility of federal reimbursement, according to Ohunayo, could inadvertently incentivize states to inflate project costs or compromise construction standards, knowing that the federal government might eventually foot the bill, thereby creating a moral hazard in public infrastructure development.

Constitutional Authority

Samuel Caulcrick, a former Rector of the Nigeria College of Aviation Technology, provided clarity on the constitutional framework governing aviation projects in Nigeria. He explained that aviation and airports are listed under the Exclusive Legislative List in Item 3 of Part I of the Second Schedule to the 1999 Constitution. This constitutional arrangement permits state governments to construct, finance, and maintain airports or airstrips within their territories. However, it explicitly reserves the regulatory authority over aviation operations, airspace control, and the issuance of aviation licenses to the Federal Government and its agencies, such as the Nigerian Civil Aviation Authority, FAAN, and the Nigerian Airspace Management Agency.

Caulcrick's explanation underscores a critical distinction: while states have the power to build, they lack the power to regulate. This separation of powers implies that even if a state constructs an airport, its operational viability and adherence to national and international aviation standards remain under federal purview. The current controversy thus also touches upon the coordination and alignment between state-level infrastructure initiatives and federal regulatory and economic frameworks, highlighting potential gaps in integrated planning and resource allocation for critical national assets.