The Common Good: Demands Benin-Asaba Road Concession Accountability

• Rev. David Ugolor of The Common Good has called for transparency and accountability regarding the Benin-Asaba Road concession, despite President Tinubu's intervention.
• The Federal Executive Council approved the 25-year, 125-kilometer concession to Africa Plus Consortium on January 18, 2023.
• Significant financial discrepancies exist, with initial estimates of N65.15 billion for 100km contrasting with later public descriptions of a N228 billion, 125km transaction.
• Ugolor emphasizes that the public accountability question extends beyond the concessionaire's performance, demanding explanations for approval, financing, supervision, and deterioration.
• An independent technical, contractual, and financial review is sought to establish facts, protect the government from liabilities, and prevent a taxpayer bailout.

An independent technical, contractual, and financial review is essential to establish the facts, protect the government from avoidable liabilities, and prevent an unnecessary taxpayer bailout.

The Convener of The Common Good, Rev. David Ugolor, has issued a strong call for transparency and accountability regarding the concession process for the critical Benin-Asaba Road. In a statement released on Wednesday, Ugolor acknowledged President Bola Tinubu's recent intervention to address the road's deteriorating state, but emphasized that this operational response fails to answer fundamental questions about how the concession was initially approved and subsequently managed.

The 125-kilometer Benin-Asaba corridor was granted a 25-year concession to Africa Plus Consortium by the Federal Executive Council (FEC) on January 18, 2023, according to public records. Despite this approval, the road's condition has worsened, prompting Ugolor to highlight the need for a thorough examination of the entire process, rather than just addressing the symptoms of neglect. He stressed that simply blaming the concessionaire or ordering reconstruction does not explain the underlying issues of approval, financing, supervision, or the factors leading to the road's current state.

Significant financial discrepancies have emerged concerning the Benin-Asaba Road concession. The Infrastructure Concession Regulatory Commission (ICRC) had projected substantial revenue of approximately N1.589 trillion over the concession period. An ICRC Highway Development and Management Initiative (HDMI) bulletin initially described the project as a Value-Added Concession, involving the transfer of the road pavement and entire right-of-way for development and management, with a preliminary investment estimate of about N65.15 billion for a 100-kilometer scope.

However, later public descriptions of the transaction indicated a 125-kilometer scope with a N228 billion valuation. Furthermore, reports suggest the Edo State Government entered an equity partnership in a N228 billion reconstruction arrangement alongside Africa Plus Partners, InfraCorp, and AAA Infrastructure. Ugolor asserts that the substantial amount involved, the ownership structure, specific conditions, and risk exposure demand authoritative reconciliation with the original concession agreement, especially given the shift in the administration's narrative from a fully financed flagship public-private partnership to one describing the concessionaire's performance as a failure.

The legal framework governing such projects, specifically the ICRC Act, places clear responsibilities on the involved parties. Under this Act, the responsible ministry is mandated to ensure that any project proponent possesses the necessary financial capacity, expertise, and experience. Additionally, the ministry is tasked with supervising the concession, while the ICRC is responsible for monitoring compliance. Ugolor argues that the public is entitled to a comprehensive explanation of the conduct of both the private entity and the government institutions involved in the selection, negotiation, approval, review, and supervision of this concession.

To address these systemic issues, Ugolor has proposed The Common Good's accountability test, which encompasses six critical areas: decision-making, evidence, safeguards, monitoring, finances, remedies, and public disclosure. This framework calls for clarity on who authorized major decisions, including the award, variations, financing confirmation, handover, asphalt removal, work suspension, and reconstruction, and under what authority. It also demands the disclosure of all supporting engineering, financial, and legal evidence, emphasizing that while immediate repairs are necessary to alleviate hardship, they alone cannot establish the full scope of accountability.

Ugolor's critique extends beyond the concessionaire's performance, highlighting that the public accountability question is far broader. He questions who authorized the removal of existing asphalt, what warnings or sanctions were issued, and ultimately, who will bear the additional costs incurred due to the road's deterioration and subsequent interventions. He stresses that the current measures, while reducing immediate hardship, do not provide the necessary accountability.

To ensure genuine accountability and prevent future liabilities, Ugolor advocates for emergency repairs to proceed concurrently with an independent technical, contractual, and financial review. This comprehensive review is deemed essential to establish the facts, protect the government from avoidable financial burdens, prevent an unnecessary taxpayer bailout, and definitively determine responsibility for the current state of affairs. Such a review would also provide crucial insights into the transparency and compliance of major Nigerian infrastructure concessions under the ICRC Act.

This case signals heightened scrutiny on transparency, financial discrepancies, and regulatory compliance in major Nigerian infrastructure concessions, particularly under the ICRC Act. Lawyers advising parties involved in similar public-private partnerships should prepare for potential independent reviews and ensure rigorous adherence to contractual obligations and regulatory oversight to mitigate legal and financial liabilities.

Source: Reporting based on a statement from The Common Good