Aviation industry experts have criticised the Federal Government’s plan to reimburse the Yobe State Government N100.5 billion for constructing the Muhammadu Buhari International Cargo Airport in Damaturu, describing the proposed payment as unnecessary and raising concerns about the economic viability of state-owned airports.
The experts, who spoke in separate interviews, questioned the cost, management and long-term sustainability of airports built by state governments, arguing that such projects should be guided by clear economic objectives, realistic passenger and cargo projections, and sustainable operational plans.
President Bola Tinubu had asked the Senate to approve a N100.5 billion promissory note programme to reimburse Yobe State for the construction of the airport.
In a letter addressed to Senate President Godswill Akpabio, Tinubu sought legislative approval for the issuance of the promissory note through the Debt Management Office.
The President explained that the Federal Executive Council, at its second extraordinary meeting held on May 23, 2023, approved the Federal Government’s takeover of the airport and the reimbursement of its construction cost through a promissory note programme.
However, aviation analyst and member of the Aviation Round Table, Olumide Ohunayo, questioned the rationale behind state governments embarking on airport projects that could prove too expensive to operate and maintain.
Ohunayo acknowledged that airports often begin as social infrastructure projects but warned that problems arise when the scale of investment exceeds the economic capacity of the state concerned.
“We must agree that most airports start as social projects. However, when a state goes ahead and builds an airport that is far bigger than its economy can sustain, the end result is situations like this reimbursement controversy,” he said.
He argued that some airport projects could be driven more by political considerations than sound economic planning, particularly when undertaken close to election periods.
The aviation analyst also warned that expectations of reimbursement by the Federal Government could encourage some state governments to inflate project costs or compromise construction standards.
He added that comparing the amounts claimed for reimbursement with the physical condition and quality of completed airport infrastructure could raise questions about whether the costs were justified.
Meanwhile, Managing Director of the Federal Airports Authority of Nigeria (FAAN), Olubunmi Kuku, has cautioned state governments against embarking on airport projects without conducting comprehensive economic and feasibility studies.
Kuku noted that fewer than 10 per cent of Nigerians currently travel by air, highlighting the need for governments to assess actual demand before committing public funds to airport construction.
Former Rector of the Nigerian College of Aviation Technology, Samuel Caulcrick, explained that the 1999 Constitution distinguishes between the authority to construct airports and the power to regulate aviation activities.
According to Caulcrick, aviation and airports fall under Item 3 of Part I of the Second Schedule to the Constitution, which places aviation regulation within the Federal Government’s exclusive legislative jurisdiction.
He said state governments could construct, finance and maintain airports or airstrips within their territories but lacked the constitutional authority to regulate aviation operations, control airspace or issue aviation licences.
“This means states can build, but cannot regulate,” Caulcrick said.
He explained that regulatory responsibilities remain with federal aviation agencies, including the Nigerian Civil Aviation Authority, FAAN and the Nigerian Airspace Management Agency.
The debate over the proposed reimbursement has renewed concerns about the financial sustainability of state-owned airports, the management of public funds and the need for transparent cost assessments before governments commit to major aviation infrastructure projects.
Comments