An economist has raised concerns over a recent bilateral agreement between Nigeria and the United Kingdom, arguing that a key component—the rehabilitation of Lagos ports—could foster debt without delivering commensurate local benefits.
Professor Akpan Ekpo, a respected Nigerian economist, expressed his reservations following the signing of three Memoranda of Understanding (MoUs) between the two nations. The agreements, announced earlier,cover a migration partnership, cooperation on organised immigration crime and border security, and a statement of intent to expand business visas for UK companies operating in Nigeria. However, Prof. Ekpo’s critique focuses specifically on the port rehabilitation deal included within the broader cooperation framework.
Speaking on Arise Television, Prof. Ekpo stated that the port rehabilitation initiative for Apapa and Tincan ports is structurally skewed toward British economic interests. He contended the project would primarily stimulate the UK’s ailing steel industry and benefit British banks, while potentially saddling Nigeria with debt. “The British government is very clever,” he said. “They’ve turned economic diplomacy upside down and reinforced our neo-colonial status.” He further argued that job creation from the project would largely benefit British workers and that the dependency on British-sourced equipment and expertise undermines potential value for Nigeria.
Prof. Ekpo suggested the process should have involved Nigeria’s own investment promotion bodies from the outset to ensure a more balanced agreement. His comments highlight a broader debate on the terms of foreign-led infrastructure projects in Nigeria, particularly regarding debt sustainability and technology transfer.
The Apapa and Tincan port complex is critical to Nigeria’s economy, handling a significant portion of the nation’s maritime trade. The UK government has positioned the deal as part of a strengthened economic partnership, aligning with post-Brexit trade strategy. The Nigerian government has not yet provided a detailed rebuttal to the specific economic claims regarding the port component.
The economist’s analysis underscores persistent concerns about the long-term financial obligations tied to foreign-funded infrastructure. It calls into question whether such high-profile diplomatic agreements sufficiently prioritize national economic sovereignty and tangible local capacity building. The port rehabilitation scheme is now under scrutiny to demonstrate its projected return on investment for Nigeria beyond the initial diplomatic optics.
