…as Nigerians flay $900m loans for Apapa, Tin Can ports, accepting UK deportees
President Bola Tinubu’s recent state visit to the United Kingdom, widely touted by supporters as historic, has instead triggered a storm of criticism, controversy, and renewed scrutiny of his administration’s domestic and international priorities.
The trip, the first formal state visit by a Nigerian leader to the UK in 37 years, was meant to signal a reset in bilateral relations, and position Nigeria as an attractive destination for investment. However, by the time the president returned to Abuja in the early hours of Friday, the narrative had shifted dramatically.
Critics argued that the visit exposed deep structural weaknesses in Nigeria’s governance, raised uncomfortable questions about national priorities, and highlighted what many see as a pattern of lopsided agreements that favor foreign interests over domestic development.
At the center of the controversy are two major agreements signed during the visit: a £746 million ports modernization deal and a new migration pact facilitating the return of Nigerians without legal status in the UK.
While government officials have framed both agreements as strategic and mutually beneficial, a growing chorus of commentators insists they overwhelmingly advantage Britain.
Policy of Servitude
The ports deal, which involves financing for upgrades to the Lagos Port Complex in Apapa and Tin Can Island Port, was celebrated by UK Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, as a boost to British industry. According to Starmer, the agreement would “support thousands of skilled workers while boosting investment into our economy,” particularly within the UK’s steel sector.
For many Nigerian observers, however, that statement underscored the imbalance at the heart of the deal.
“UK truly don’t miss any opportunity to improve their economy and welfare of their citizens,” wrote Azubuike Ihemeje, a lawyer and public affairs commentator. “Our primitivism won’t let us think about the consequences of not developing our steel industry. Na jamboree we love.”
Others were even more scathing. Catholic priest and commentator, Kelvin Ugwu, described the visit as emblematic of a deeper psychological and economic dependency.
“For the UK, it is always about their interest. But the most shameful part of all these is that, though they need you more than you need them, the colonized mind still believes we are the ones in need,” he wrote.
“Ordinarily, they are the ones that ought to come looking for us… but Nah, our so-called president had to travel from Nigeria… at a time when the nation is bleeding.”
Ugwu’s criticism reflects a broader sentiment that Nigeria, despite its vast natural resources, continues to engage in economic arrangements that reinforce its role as a supplier of raw materials rather than a producer of finished goods. This concern is, particularly pronounced in the context of the steel component of the ports deal.
Nigeria possesses an estimated three billion metric tonnes of iron ore, yet remains heavily dependent on imported steel. Critics argue that instead of borrowing to import steel for infrastructure projects, the country should prioritize capacity development by developing its steel industry.
Bad Case Worsened
Chinemerem Nwachukwu, in a widely circulated commentary, laid out the economic implications in stark terms. “In 2024 and 2025, Nigeria exported iron ore worth about $9.5 million mostly to China. Guess what the value of that same amount would be if we refined it into steel – $60 million,” he wrote.
“So we sell to China, collect $10 million, then China refines to steel worth $60 million, most of which we buy back. Madness!”
He argued that a functional steel sector could generate up to $6 billion annually, save billions in foreign exchange, and significantly boost GDP. Instead, he said, Nigeria continues to pursue policies that undermine its industrial potential.
Beyond the economic critique, the geographic focus of the ports upgrade has also drawn criticism.
Analysts question why the government is concentrating investment in already congested Lagos ports rather than developing eastern ports, such as Onne and Port Harcourt, which could ease logistical bottlenecks and promote regional balance.
“If any ports needed to be expanded or upgraded, it is the eastern ports,” Nwachukwu argued, adding that a significant portion of non-oil imports ultimately end up in the South-South and South-East regions.
“It’s all propaganda that the eastern waterways are not safe,” he said.
Accepting Deportees Criminals
The second major agreement – the migration deal – has proven equally contentious. Under the arrangement, Nigeria will accept deportees using “UK letters” as identification, eliminating the need for traditional travel documents.
UK officials have praised the deal as a major step toward tightening border controls and speeding up deportations. Nigeria’s Interior Minister, Olubunmi Tunji-Ojo, described it as part of a commitment to “fairness, transparency and responsibility” in migration management.
However, critics see it as another example of Nigeria assuming obligations that primarily serve foreign interests.
The agreement also includes provisions for joint intelligence operations targeting immigration-related crimes, as well as the establishment of a “fusion cell” involving government agencies, financial institutions, and tech firms. While these measures are framed as efforts to combat fraud and organized crime, some analysts warn they may disproportionately stigmatize Nigerians abroad.
A Jamboree Amid Bloodshed
Yet, beyond the substance of the agreements, it was the timing of the visit that provoked the most visceral reactions. Tinubu departed Nigeria shortly after a deadly Boko Haram attack in Maiduguri that killed, at least, 23 people and left 128 injured.
For many, the decision to proceed with the trip in the immediate aftermath of such violence was deeply troubling.
Farooq Kperogi, a US-based professor and columnist, described the situation in stark terms. “I have just finished watching the videos and photographs of the unspeakably bloodcurdling carnage Boko Haram has unleashed… and I am left shuddering in absolute disbelief,” he wrote.
“In moments like this, leadership is measured by symbolic presence. A competent, attentive, and empathetic commander-in-chief would interrupt whatever engagements hold him abroad and return home.”
Isa Sanusi echoed this sentiment, criticizing what he perceived as a lack of empathy among Nigeria’s political elite.
“The entire government and governors are all in London… The excitement on their faces… just shows their low self-esteem,” he said.
“Those, who invited them knew very well, who they are dealing with… so insensitive that they can choose a dinner at Windsor over their own people, even when their country is on fire.”
The optics of the visit – images of Nigerian officials attending formal events in London while violence raged at home – have become a focal point for critics, who argue that the administration is increasingly disconnected from the realities facing ordinary citizens.
Powerful Hired Endorsement
Still, defenders of the president insist that the visit was both necessary and strategically important. Former Foreign Affairs Minister Bolaji Akinyemi argued that the significance of the state visit outweighed the need for last-minute changes.
“This would be the first Nigerian in 37 years to be invited on a state visit. You must read a meaning into that,” he said. “You don’t change a state visit at the last second because of something that happened in Maiduguri.”
Daniel Bwala, Tinubu’s special adviser on policy communication, also defended the trip, framing it as part of a broader effort to reposition Nigeria on the global stage.
“You don’t grow and develop Nigeria by sitting at home and waiting,” he wrote. “This visit is about opening doors: more investment, more jobs, and more opportunities for our people.”
Despite these defenses, the visit has become a lightning rod for broader concerns about governance, accountability, and national direction.
Worsening Corruption Scandal
Compounding the controversy are persistent allegations of corruption and declining transparency within Nigeria’s political and economic systems. Recent reports by Transparency International paint a troubling picture.
Nigeria ranked 142nd out of 182 countries in the 2025 Corruption Perceptions Index, placing it among the 38 lowest-performing nations globally. In the defence sector, the country was rated “very high risk” for corruption, with particularly poor scores in financial and operational management.
Yet, a deeper layer of controversy continues to trail Tinubu, centering on allegations of corruption, governance concerns, and what critics describe as a systematic weakening of democratic institutions.
At the heart of this storm is the long-running OPL 245 saga, arguably Nigeria’s most notorious oil corruption case, which has resurfaced in public discourse amid recent policy decisions by the Tinubu administration. The oil block, estimated to contain about nine billion barrels of crude, has been the subject of decades of litigation involving multinational oil giants Shell and Eni, as well as Nigerian officials and intermediaries.
Although courts in Italy and Nigeria eventually cleared the companies and individuals involved, questions continue to linger, particularly in light of recent moves by the Nigerian government to resolve outstanding disputes and reallocate the asset.
Opacity Over OPL 245
On August 22, 2024, Oando announced the successful completion of the $783 million acquisition of 100% of the shares in the Nigerian Agip Oil Company Limited (NAOC) from Eni, the Italian energy company, a strategic move doubled Oando’s participating interests in various Joint Ventures (OMLs 60-63) from 20% to 40%, significantly expanding its upstream operations, increasing its reserves from over 500 million to nearly 1 billion barrels of oil equivalent, and enhancing its position in Nigeria’s oil sector. But raises eyebrows.
A September 2024 article by analyst Ifeanyi Izeze has fueled fresh suspicion, drawing attention to what he described as a pattern of decisions that appear to benefit entities linked to the president’s family.
“Come to think of it, when big multinational companies are leaving Nigeria in droves… the market value of Oando Plc, run by President Bola Tinubu’s nephew, Wale Tinubu, soared… from N74 billion in 2023 to N1 trillion as of September 2024,” Izeze wrote.
He continued: “Within a few months from its initial stance, NNPC Ltd retracted its position and the deal was approved by NUPRC… This swift approval process… is not only suspicious but is also raising serious concerns about the integrity of the process.”
The controversy deepens when viewed alongside the federal government’s decision to withdraw civil claims totaling $1.1 billion against Eni in relation to OPL 245, effectively ending a protracted legal battle.
“So, it is actually very curious that, within just eight months, the NUPRC approved a deal… to Oando owned by the Tinubu family? Within that same period, Nigeria… controversially withdrew all litigation against Shell/ENI,” Izeze noted.
For critics, these developments raise uncomfortable questions about transparency, conflict of interest, and the broader direction of Nigeria’s oil sector governance.
Hostile Environment for Opposition
Adding to the unease is a controversial legislative proposal currently before the House of Representatives, which seeks to remove certificate forgery, age falsification, and false declarations as grounds for challenging election results at tribunals.
Former presidential candidate, Peter Obi, has strongly criticized the move, warning that it undermines the ethical foundations of democracy.
“There is no justification for prioritising punishment for party alignment over punishing false certificates, forgery and other forms of deception in the pursuit of public office,” Obi said.
He argued that laws should strengthen democratic accountability, not weaken it, emphasizing that integrity must remain central to public service.
These concerns are amplified by what many observers describe as an increasingly hostile environment for opposition politics in Nigeria.
In recent weeks, multiple incidents have highlighted rising tensions. In Cross River State, suspected political thugs disrupted the opening of an African Democratic Congress (ADC) secretariat, destroying equipment and dispersing supporters. Similar disruptions have been reported in Rivers State and elsewhere, alongside violent rhetoric and intimidation targeting opposition figures.
Prominent ADC figures, including Obi and Chief John Oyegun, a former governor of Edo State, recently escaped death in Benin when suspected thugs riddled their cars with bullets.
Last week, a video emerged showing APC loyalists insisting that only Tinubu is welcome to campaign in Edo. Elsewhere, Sunday Adeyemo, alias Sunday Igboho, a Yoruba nation activist turned political advocate, was also captured in a video vowing that only the president’s campaign would be allowed in the South West ahead of 2027. In yet another video, a political thug in Ibadan who confessed to killing 32 people, said only Tinubu is allowed.
The ADC itself has raised alarm over what it calls a coordinated effort to destabilize the party and undermine its leadership.
“The ADC’s alleged interference is aimed at manufacturing confusion, sponsoring illegitimate leadership claims, and crippling the only credible opposition platform Nigerians are increasingly relying on,” the party said in a statement.
The situation has drawn comparisons to darker periods in Nigeria’s political history.
Old Play Book
Farooq Kperogi, in an article titled “Tinubu’s Abacha Tactics Against Opposition,” argued that the administration appears to be systematically eroding the foundations of competitive democracy.
“Tinubu still seems so insecure that he is borrowing a leaf from former Head of State, Sani Abacha… to annihilate the opposition and smooth his path to reelection,” he wrote.
Kperogi pointed to internal crises within major opposition parties, the Labour Party, the Peoples Democratic Party, and now the ADC, as evidence of a broader pattern.
“The cumulative effect… is that major opposition figures… may find themselves without stable or credible party platforms… Even if parties remain on paper, they risk becoming hollow shells,” he warned.
He further cautioned that such a trajectory could ultimately undermine the legitimacy of future elections.
“Electoral victory is one thing; perceived legitimacy is another, and the latter is harder to manufacture,” he noted.
This perception of shrinking democratic space is reinforced by the viral videos and reports of political intimidation. As noted earlier, in one instance, a supporter was recorded threatening that only ruling party banners would be tolerated in parts of Edo State.
In another, a self-confessed political thug in Ibadan boasted of violent acts while pledging loyalty to the president.
Observers say that though these incidents remain anecdotal, they contribute to a growing narrative of intolerance and political coercion.
Against this backdrop, Tinubu’s UK visit takes on added significance. What was intended as a diplomatic milestone has instead become a prism through which broader anxieties about governance, accountability, and national direction are being refracted.
Critics argue that the visit encapsulates a troubling disconnect between the government’s international posture and domestic realities. While officials emphasize global partnerships and economic reforms, many Nigerians remain preoccupied with insecurity, economic hardship, and institutional decline.
Even the symbolism of the visit, hailed by supporters as a sign of Nigeria’s renewed global relevance, has been questioned. For some, it evokes uncomfortable historical echoes, particularly given past controversies surrounding Nigeria’s image abroad.