The African Democratic Congress (ADC) has called on the Federal Government to provide full details of the £746 million port infrastructure agreement signed during the recent state visit of Bola Ahmed Tinubu to the United Kingdom.
In a statement issued on Sunday by its National Publicity Secretary, Bolaji Abdullahi, the party criticised the deal, describing it as one that could place Nigeria at a financial disadvantage while largely benefiting the UK.
The agreement, valued at about $997 million, is intended to upgrade port infrastructure at two of Nigeria’s busiest maritime hubs in Lagos State, specifically the Apapa Port and the Tin Can Island Port.
According to the ADC, the government should disclose the full terms of the agreement, including the interest rate, repayment conditions, project timeline, and the extent of local participation in the project.
The party stated that although the government has presented the agreement as a diplomatic achievement, available information suggests it is essentially a commercial loan structured under the UK’s export financing framework.
The deal is expected to be financed through the Buyer Credit Facility of UK Export Finance and arranged by Citibank, London branch.
ADC expressed concern that a significant portion of the contract would benefit British companies. It noted that at least £236 million of the supplier contracts could go to UK firms, while British Steel is expected to supply 120,000 tonnes of steel billets under a £70 million contract for the port rehabilitation project.
The party argued that Nigerians deserve clarity on the economic implications of the agreement, including how many jobs it will create locally, the percentage of local goods and services involved, and whether there are provisions for skills transfer and training.
It also questioned the number of expatriate workers that would participate in the project and whether small and medium-sized Nigerian businesses would benefit from the contract.
The ADC warned that without full disclosure, Nigerians could perceive the deal as one that prioritises foreign interests over national economic benefits.
