THE SEAPORT CRITIC WHO FEARS A FEASIBILITY STUDY
When pessimism masquerades as financial literacy
Chief Eric Opah’s article raises legitimate questions about dredging, financing and commercial viability. Unfortunately, it commits the very economic error it claims to expose: reaching a final investment verdict before the feasibility study has produced its findings.
That is not development economics.
It is fortune-telling with a calculator. 😆😂
FIRST, ABIA HAS NOT STARTED BUILDING A SEAPORT
Governor Alex Otti approved a feasibility study—not a construction contract, sovereign loan or blank cheque.
The study is expected to examine:
- Dredging requirements
- Technical and environmental viability
- Port design
- Road and rail connections
- Projected cargo volumes
- Private-sector financing arrangements
Governor Otti has publicly acknowledged that the study could conclude that the project is not viable.
So, what exactly is the criticism?
That a government should not investigate whether a major economic opportunity is feasible because somebody has already declared it impossible from a newspaper column?
Wonderful financial literacy! 😂
THE 19.5-KILOMETRE MAGIC CALCULATION
The article announces that roughly 19.5 kilometres of dredging will be required.
But the actual length, width, depth, sediment composition, navigation route and maintenance requirements are precisely what hydrographic and engineering studies must determine.
Distance from the sea does not automatically mean every metre will require dredging to the same depth and width.
Only a professional feasibility study can establish that.
Yet our international shipping expert appears to have completed the hydrographic survey from his writing table.
Laughter, please! 😆😂
DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS IS NOT “SPEND ONLY ON TODAY’S PROBLEMS”
At the subnational level, development economics requires a government to pursue two categories of investment simultaneously:
- Immediate social expenditure on healthcare, roads, education, salaries and pensions.
- Transformational infrastructure capable of changing the productive structure of the state.
A government that repairs roads but refuses to create future trade corridors may improve conditions today while preserving economic dependence tomorrow.
Ports, railways, industrial parks, airports and power systems are not ordinary consumption items. They are catalytic infrastructure.
Their value comes from the industries, logistics networks, employment, exports, tax revenues and land-value appreciation they can unlock.
Of course, such projects must pass engineering, environmental, financial and cost-benefit tests.
That is precisely why responsible governments conduct feasibility studies.
REMEMBER DEE SAM MBAKWE
Chief Sam Mbakwe did not govern old Imo State by asking only:
“What can we conveniently afford this afternoon?”
His development model combined roads, agriculture, education, industrialisation and strategic infrastructure.
His administration pursued the Imo Airport project, established Imo State University and promoted major industrial and infrastructural initiatives.
Imagine today’s argument being presented to Mbakwe:
“Sir, why consider an airport when some villages still need water?”
By that logic, old Imo State would never have built an airport, university, industrial layout or major public enterprise.
Every transformational project could have been dismissed because some immediate needs remained unresolved.
Development is not achieved by permanently choosing potholes over productive infrastructure.
It is achieved through planning, sequencing, partnership and disciplined execution.
FINANCIAL LITERACY REQUIRES KNOWING WHO CARRIES THE RISK
The article repeatedly assumes that the Abia State Government will finance the entire seaport from monthly federal allocations.
Where is the evidence?
A properly structured public-private partnership can distribute construction, operational, financing and demand risks among government, investors, lenders and port operators.
The intelligent questions should be:
- What financing model will be adopted?
- What financial guarantees will the state provide?
- What cargo volume will make the project viable?
- What will be Abia’s direct financial exposure?
- What environmental and social costs may arise?
- What is the projected economic rate of return?
Those questions require data.
Declaring the project wasteful before obtaining the data is not financial prudence.
It is financial illiteracy wearing a safety helmet. 😂
LOCAL GOVERNMENT AUTONOMY IS NOT AN ALTERNATIVE TO A SEAPORT
The article presents a dramatic choice:
Either fund local governments or investigate a seaport.
That is a false choice.
Local governments provide grassroots services.
State governments undertake infrastructure and economic projects whose benefits cross local government boundaries.
The Federal Government handles national responsibilities.
A maritime and logistics corridor potentially serving Aba, Ukwa, Umuahia and the wider South-East cannot sensibly be reduced to a ward-level project.
Local government autonomy and state-level economic planning can coexist.
One does not cancel the other.
CONNECTING ABA TO ONNE IS NOT THE ONLY OPTION
Improving Aba’s road and rail access to Onne and Calabar ports is sensible.
But development economics warns against permanent dependence on infrastructure located outside a state’s jurisdiction.
Abia can improve connections to existing ports while simultaneously investigating whether its own maritime corridor is commercially feasible.
One is a short- to medium-term logistics solution.
The other is a possible long-term structural investment.
A serious government examines both.
THE COMMON-SENSE VERDICT
Nobody has proved that the proposed Abia seaport is viable.
Nobody has proved that it is unviable either.
That is why there is a feasibility study.
If the figures fail, the government should stop.
If the engineering is impracticable, it should stop.
If the environmental cost is excessive, it should stop.
If private investors refuse to carry an appropriate share of the risk, it should stop.
But if the study demonstrates sufficient cargo demand, manageable dredging, credible private financing and strong economic returns, rejecting it merely because Abia has other needs would amount to developmental cowardice.
Chief Sam Mbakwe did not wait until every village problem disappeared before imagining major infrastructure.
No serious society does.
The real economic miscalculation is not studying the seaport.
It is demanding that Abia abandon its maritime possibilities before the experts have completed the calculations.
For now, the critic has converted a feasibility study into an imaginary construction contract, converted local government autonomy into a ban on state-level development and produced engineering conclusions without an engineering study.
That is not economic analysis.
That is three errors, one headline and plenty of laughter. 😆😂
