Benin-Asaba road concession demands accountability, transparency — Group
By Gabriel Ewepu
ABUJA — The Convener of The Common Good, Rev. David Ugolor, has said the Federal Government’s intervention in the deteriorating Benin-Asaba Road must be accompanied by transparency and accountability over the concession process.
Ugolor, in a statement issued on Wednesday, said President Bola Tinubu’s intervention was welcome but had not addressed questions surrounding the process that led to the concession and the subsequent deterioration of the road.
He said available public records indicated that the Federal Executive Council (FEC), on January 18, 2023, approved the 125-kilometre Benin-Asaba corridor for a 25-year concession to Africa Plus Consortium.
According to him, the Infrastructure Concession Regulatory Commission (ICRC) had projected about N1.589 trillion in concession-period revenue.
Ugolor said an ICRC Highway Development and Management Initiative (HDMI) bulletin described the Value-Added Concession as involving the transfer of the road pavement and entire right-of-way for development and management.
He added that the bulletin listed a preliminary Benin-Asaba investment estimate of about N65.15 billion for a 100-kilometre scope, which differed from later public descriptions of a 125-kilometre, N228 billion transaction.
He further said public records indicated that the Edo State Government reportedly entered into an equity partnership in a N228 billion reconstruction arrangement involving Africa Plus Partners, InfraCorp and AAA Infrastructure.
Ugolor said the amount involved, ownership structure, conditions and risk exposure required authoritative reconciliation with the original concession arrangement.
He said President Tinubu’s directive for urgent intervention was necessary but described it as an operational response rather than a complete accountability measure.
“Blaming the concessionaire and ordering reconstruction do not explain how the concession was approved, financed, varied, supervised or allowed to deteriorate; who authorised the removal of existing asphalt; what warnings and sanctions were issued; and who will bear the additional cost,” he said.
According to him, the administration had moved from describing the project as a fully financed flagship public-private partnership to describing the concessionaire’s performance as a failure.
He acknowledged that immediate measures to clear the road, redesign or reconstruct failed sections and review the concession arrangement could reduce the hardship faced by motorists.
However, he said such measures would not, by themselves, establish accountability.
“The public accountability question is wider than whether the concessionaire failed,” Ugolor said.
He noted that under the ICRC Act, the responsible ministry was required to ensure that a project proponent possessed the necessary financial capacity, expertise and experience, while the ministry was also responsible for supervising the concession and the ICRC for monitoring compliance.
He said the public therefore deserved an explanation of the conduct of both the private party and the institutions involved in selecting, negotiating, approving, reviewing and supervising the concession.
Ugolor called for emergency repairs to proceed immediately alongside an independent technical, contractual and financial review to establish the facts, protect the government from avoidable liabilities, prevent an unnecessary taxpayer bailout and determine responsibility.
He outlined what he described as The Common Good accountability test, covering six areas: decision-making, evidence, safeguards, monitoring, finances and remedies, as well as public disclosure.
On decision-making, he said there should be clarity on who authorised major decisions concerning the award, variation, financing confirmation, handover, asphalt removal, work suspension and reconstruction, and under what authority.
He also called for disclosure of the engineering, financial and legal evidence supporting the decisions, as well as details of performance security, insurance, independent supervision, traffic management and drainage safeguards.
On monitoring, Ugolor asked what the Ministry and ICRC knew about the project, when they became aware of problems and what enforcement actions were taken.
He also demanded clarification on the current project value, investments and payments made, existing public liabilities and who would bear the cost of the project’s failure.
He said the government should also explain how safe movement would be restored, losses addressed, defective work corrected and responsible parties sanctioned.
Ugolor further called for the publication of relevant project information, subject only to narrowly justified redactions, to enable citizens to assess the performance of the concession.
He said the proposed accountability framework was consistent with Nigeria’s existing regulatory structure, noting that the ICRC Act assigns supervision to the granting ministry and compliance monitoring to the ICRC.
He added that ICRC’s contract-disclosure guidance provided for the publication of the signed agreement after financial close, project summaries, details of the independent engineer and performance reports, approved variations, shareholders, risk allocation, expected performance, penalties, default and termination provisions, as well as actual performance failures.
The post Benin-Asaba road concession demands accountability, transparency — Group appeared first on Vanguard News.
