Yobe Airport bailout, money badly spent

PRESIDENT Bola Tinubu’s proposal to reimburse Yobe State N100.5 billion for constructing the Muhammadu Buhari International Cargo Airport in Damaturu is a disturbing indictment of Nigeria’s spending priorities and standards of public accountability. It is good money spent badly.

In a country where millions of children are out of school, hospitals are poorly equipped, and communities lack basic infrastructure, the Federal Government is preparing to compensate a state for an expensive project whose economic returns remain insufficiently demonstrated.

The message is that states can build first, justify later, and hope Abuja picks up the bill. This is a blatant fiscal mismatch.

In a letter to the National Assembly, Tinubu sought approval for a N100,509,017,234.55 promissory note programme to reimburse Yobe. The Federal Executive Council approved the airport’s takeover and reimbursement on May 23, 2023, before Tinubu assumed office.

The Bureau of Public Procurement subsequently reviewed the project and recommended the amount. The Senate has referred the proposal to its Committee on Local and Foreign Debts for scrutiny; the payment is therefore not yet a done deal.

True, Tinubu inherited it rather than originating it. But that does not absolve him of the responsibility to examine its merits, protect taxpayers and ensure that public money delivers demonstrable value. Continuity in government must not become a convenient excuse for perpetuating questionable spending.

Nigeria’s governors have developed an unhealthy appetite for airports, often treating them as monuments to their administrations rather than investments whose economic returns must justify their costs. In Nigeria, state airports are white elephants for the flying pleasure of their ‘Excellencies.’

An airport is not inherently valuable because it is expensive or bears the label “international”. Its worth depends on the traffic it attracts, the economic activity it generates and whether the benefits justify its construction and operational costs.

In July 2025, The Nation reported that 19 subnational governments had committed more than N369.4 billion to airport projects, many reportedly plagued by inadequate utilisation or a lack of regular commercial services.

Such investments raise fundamental questions about feasibility studies, demand forecasts and the wisdom of committing scarce public resources to infrastructure that may struggle to sustain itself.

Federal Airports Authority of Nigeria Managing Director, Olubunmi Kuku, has warned states against pursuing airport projects without proper economic and feasibility assessments. Less than 10 per cent of Nigerians travel by air; therefore, governments must establish credible demand before committing enormous sums to aviation infrastructure.

The issue is not whether states should build airports. It is whether they should build airports without demonstrating that the investment is necessary, affordable and economically defensible.

Yobe’s circumstances make the proposed reimbursement particularly difficult to defend without compelling evidence of public value. UNICEF reported in November 2024 that two million children were out of school across Borno, Adamawa and Yobe.

It also found that 56 per cent of displaced children in the three states were not attending school, while only 29 per cent of schools had teachers meeting minimum qualification standards. These numbers reflect a profound human-development crisis that demands urgent, sustained investment.

Against this backdrop, a N100.5 billion outlay warrants scrutiny. What could that money achieve if directed towards rehabilitating schools, recruiting and training teachers, strengthening primary healthcare, improving maternal and child health, providing clean water and connecting rural communities to markets? How many lives could be improved by investments in irrigation, agricultural storage, feeder roads and electricity?

This is the principle of opportunity cost. Money committed to one project is unavailable for competing needs. Governments that ignore this arithmetic may produce impressive infrastructure while leaving their citizens impoverished and underserved.

Defenders of the Damaturu airport may argue that it can stimulate agricultural exports, attract investment, create jobs and support humanitarian or security operations. These are legitimate considerations, particularly in an agricultural state. But potential benefits must not be confused with demonstrated benefits.

A cargo airport cannot manufacture export competitiveness merely by existing. Farmers need reliable electricity, processing facilities, storage, cold-chain infrastructure, finance, quality certification and dependable access to markets.

Exporters must be identified, cargo volumes credibly projected, and commercial operators and customers secured. Without these complementary investments, an expensive terminal risks becoming infrastructure in search of an economic purpose.

Strategic value, moreover, must be established through evidence rather than invoked as a blanket justification for spending. Even if the airport serves legitimate national security or humanitarian objectives, the government must show why its benefits warrant the acquisition cost and future operating liabilities.

The proposed reimbursement poses a wider fiscal danger by transferring the consequences of a state government’s investment choices to the federation. Governors who exercise restraint and prioritise essential services receive no equivalent reward. Yet the entire country may be required to finance the consequences of another administration’s decisions.

In 2024, the National Assembly approved more than N24 billion in reimbursements to Kebbi and Nasarawa for airports taken over by the Federal Government. The precedent makes the Yobe proposal especially consequential.

• BOA intervention revives Kaduna ginger farms after blight devastation
• Motorists queue for CNG amid high transport fares
• $7bn seaport deal: Ogun youths endorse Tinubu, APC candidates

If such settlements become routine, governors may conclude that the route to recovering the cost of questionable projects is to build first and negotiate federal reimbursement later.

The resulting moral hazard is obvious. Individual administrations enjoy the political prestige of inaugurating expensive projects, while taxpayers nationwide inherit the financial consequences. Federal resources must not become insurance against poor planning, misplaced priorities or political vanity.

To be clear, aviation’s placement on the Exclusive Legislative List gives the Federal Government legislative authority over the sector. It does not, by itself, entitle a state to recover every sum spent constructing an airport. Federal ownership and regulatory authority are not substitutes for a defensible legal basis, transparent valuation and demonstrable public benefit.

Nor should the BPP’s recommendation end the inquiry. The National Assembly must demand the original budget, procurement records, contract variations, final project cost, independent valuation and evidence of compliance with applicable procurement rules.

It should establish what was contracted, what was delivered and whether the recommended N100.5 billion represents reasonable value for money. Any significant difference between the original budget and final cost must be explained, not simply accepted.

The investigation must account for the airport’s lifecycle costs. Reimbursement is only the beginning of the potential federal liability. Staffing, security, equipment, maintenance and other operating expenses will continue long after the promissory notes have been issued.

The government must disclose its traffic and cargo forecasts, expected revenues, operating model and plans for meeting any recurrent deficit. Otherwise, taxpayers risk paying heavily to acquire an asset that continues to drain public funds.

The broader lesson is that governors must distinguish infrastructure that transforms an economy from infrastructure that merely decorates an administration. Increased Federation Account Allocation Committee receipts should strengthen public services and productive capacity, not encourage a race to erect costly monuments.

Before approving major projects, governors should commission independent feasibility studies, publish realistic demand forecasts, identify prospective users and operators, estimate recurrent expenditure and compare alternatives.

Major contracts, variations and audited project costs should be publicly accessible. State Houses of Assembly must exercise genuine oversight, while citizens, journalists and civil society organisations should track expenditure against measurable results.

For agricultural logistics, upgrading rural roads, establishing produce aggregation centres, improving storage and connecting farmers to existing airports may deliver better value than constructing new facilities. For industrial development, reliable electricity, serviced industrial land, security, skills training and efficient transport links may be more decisive than a prestigious airport terminal.

The Federal Government must equally establish clear, public criteria for future reimbursements.

Any settlement should require independently verified expenditure, a defensible legal basis, demonstrated national benefits and a credible assessment of long-term liabilities. Exceptional strategic investments must be distinguished from projects conceived primarily for political prestige.

The National Assembly must not treat the Yobe proposal as a routine financial settlement. Its responsibility is to protect the public interest, not merely ratify an executive request. It should reject the reimbursement if the government cannot establish a compelling case, or withhold approval until the outstanding questions have been satisfactorily answered.

Ultimately, Nigeria’s development crisis is not simply a shortage of revenue. It is also a crisis of allocation, accountability and priorities.

Public resources are squandered when governments pursue conspicuous projects while neglecting the schools, hospitals, roads, water systems and productive infrastructure that directly improve lives.

Tinubu may insist that he is honouring an inherited commitment. Responsible leadership, however, requires more than mechanically implementing past decisions. It requires the courage to question them, correct defective incentives and refuse to transfer the cost of questionable choices to an already burdened public.

The proposed N100.5 billion reimbursement must therefore become a test of accountability, not an automatic reward for expenditure. Unless compelling national benefits, a defensible valuation and a sustainable operating plan can be demonstrated, the National Assembly should refuse approval.

Public money is not compensation for political misjudgement. In a country struggling to educate its children, provide affordable healthcare and build basic infrastructure, governments must justify their priorities by the benefits they deliver to ordinary citizens.

Tinubu should not compound the folly of a questionable state investment by turning its reimbursement into a model for governance.