Odita Sunday 
The Lagos–Calabar Coastal Highway Controversy, the 2027 Elections and the Troubling Question of Security Neutrality
By. Chris Okobah
A highway may change its direction, but what happens when the people begin to lose faith in the government that promised to build it? And what becomes of democracy when the security institutions entrusted with protecting the people’s votes are themselves struggling to earn public confidence?
These are not ordinary political questions. They strike at the very heart of governance, constitutional responsibility and the fragile relationship between the Nigerian state and its citizens.
The controversy surrounding the Lagos–Calabar Coastal Highway and the assurances of peaceful, credible elections in 2027 may appear to be two separate national conversations. In reality, they raise a common and deeply troubling question: Can Nigerians still trust the institutions that exercise power in their name?
The Lagos–Calabar Coastal Highway was presented as an ambitious national infrastructure project, promising economic transformation, improved connectivity, investment opportunities and renewed prosperity for communities along its proposed corridor.
For many residents, it represented more than a road. It represented hope.
Hope that neglected communities might finally experience development. Hope that businesses would flourish, employment opportunities would expand and generations of economic isolation would gradually disappear.
Now, the Federal Government’s decision to alter portions of the proposed route, including plans to utilise the existing East–West Road, has generated understandable concern.
The explanations offered include difficult terrain, environmental vulnerabilities, flooding risks and the financial implications of constructing new alignments.
These concerns may be technically legitimate. No responsible government should deliberately construct a highway through environmentally unsuitable terrain merely to preserve an earlier political promise.
But that is precisely where the more disturbing questions begin.
Were these environmental and engineering challenges not foreseeable before the project was announced?
Was a comprehensive Environmental Impact Assessment conducted?
Was a detailed geological and hydrological investigation undertaken?
Were flooding patterns, coastal erosion, ecological vulnerabilities and long-term construction costs sufficiently examined?
And, most importantly, if these assessments were carried out, what did they reveal, and why have their findings not been made sufficiently transparent to the communities concerned?
A major national infrastructure project should not begin with political excitement and end with explanations that ought to have informed its original design.
Development requires more than bulldozers, ceremonial flag-offs and impressive engineering drawings. It requires intellectual discipline, responsible planning, financial accountability and respect for the citizens whose lives and livelihoods may be affected.
Imagine a struggling trader who anticipated new customers. Imagine a young entrepreneur who began planning a business around the promised road. Imagine communities that believed economic opportunities were finally approaching their doorsteps.
What happens to those expectations when the promised route changes?
Who explains the consequences? Who addresses legitimate losses? Who reassures communities that they have not simply been forgotten?
Where is the money mapped out for the project?
A government has the right to correct an engineering mistake. It does not have the right to evade accountability for how that mistake occurred.
WILL THE HIGHWAY CONTROVERSY HAVE ELECTORAL CONSEQUENCES?
The answer is that it certainly raises questions with potential electoral implications.
Infrastructure projects are not merely concrete, asphalt and bridges. They are also expressions of public policy, political commitments and the relationship between government and the governed.
When communities believe promises have been withdrawn without adequate consultation, disappointment can become resentment, and resentment can weaken public confidence.
However, the actual electoral consequences, if any, will depend on how affected communities assess the government’s explanations, remedial measures and broader performance.
As the 2027 elections approach, the administration should recognise that infrastructure decisions are not judged solely by the number of kilometres constructed. They are also judged by transparency, fairness, consultation and the benefits ultimately delivered.
The Federal Government should therefore publish the relevant environmental assessments, explain the engineering and financial reasons for the changes, disclose their implications for affected communities and demonstrate how legitimate concerns will be addressed.
The real tragedy would not be that a highway was diverted. It would be that public confidence was damaged because the people were denied satisfactory answers.
SECURITY AND THE 2027 ELECTIONS: CAN NIGERIANS TRUST THE PROMISE OF NEUTRALITY?
Equally troubling is the question of electoral security.
Following President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s meeting with security chiefs, the Minister of Defence, General Christopher Musa (retd.), assured Nigerians that the security agencies would remain neutral and provide the protection necessary for free, fair and credible elections.
These are encouraging assurances.
But I must ask a fundamental question:
What value does a promise of electoral neutrality have if citizens cannot see that neutrality demonstrated in the everyday conduct of security personnel?
Democracy cannot survive on assurances alone.
It must be protected by institutions whose actions inspire confidence, whose conduct demonstrates fairness and whose loyalty belongs to the Constitution rather than any political personality.
When opposition rallies are attacked, when political campaign materials are destroyed, when citizens are threatened for expressing their political preferences or when violence disrupts lawful political gatherings, the response of security agencies becomes a test of their independence.
The police must not investigate wrongdoing based on the political identity of the victim or the influence of the suspected perpetrator.
The Department of State Services must not treat legitimate political disagreement as a threat to national security while overlooking credible threats of political violence.
And the military must never become an instrument of electoral intimidation.
An officer’s uniform should represent protection, not political allegiance.
A police officer standing beside a polling unit should inspire confidence, not fear.
A citizen attending an opposition rally should enjoy precisely the same constitutional protection as a citizen attending a rally organised by the ruling party.
These are not privileges granted by a benevolent government. They are rights guaranteed by constitutional democracy.
THE REAL TEST IS NOT WHAT SECURITY CHIEFS SAY IN ABUJA
There is something profoundly disturbing about a nation where citizens must repeatedly be assured that the very institutions established to protect them will not intimidate them during elections.
Why should political participation become an act of courage?
Why should a mother be afraid that her son might be attacked simply because he attended a political gathering?
Why should a young woman have to choose between exercising her franchise and protecting her life?
Why should citizens wonder whether security personnel will protect them from political thugs or stand aside while violence unfolds?
No Nigerian should have to risk death, humiliation or intimidation merely to participate in choosing those who govern the country.
The credibility of the 2027 elections will not be determined by INEC alone.
It will also depend on what happens before the first ballot is cast.
It will depend on whether political threats are investigated, whether perpetrators of violence are prosecuted, whether lawful opposition activities are protected and whether security personnel act with equal professionalism across political divides.
An election cannot be described as genuinely free merely because ballot papers are available.
A vote cast under fear is not the fullest expression of democratic freedom. And an election conducted in an atmosphere of intimidation cannot command the same confidence as one in which every citizen participates without fear.
The government must understand that excessive militarisation is not a substitute for genuine security.
Armoured vehicles, heavily armed personnel and roadblocks may create an appearance of control, but they do not automatically create public confidence.
Real electoral security begins when citizens know that the law will protect them regardless of who they support.
DISTRUST HAS BECOME OUR POLITICAL CULTURE
The highway controversy and the questions surrounding electoral security reveal a deeper national challenge.
Too many Nigerians are becoming accustomed to government announcements without sufficient explanation, institutional promises without measurable accountability and political assurances that are difficult to reconcile with their everyday experiences.
We cannot continue in this direction.
A nation does not lose its democratic foundation in a single dramatic moment. Sometimes that foundation is weakened gradually, through unanswered questions, unpunished acts of intimidation, questionable administrative decisions and the steady erosion of public trust.
It is weakened when citizens stop believing that institutions will treat them fairly.
It is weakened when fear replaces civic participation.
It is weakened when public officials become more concerned with managing political perceptions than establishing the truth.
And it is weakened when allegiance to powerful individuals appears more consequential than allegiance to the Constitution.
President Tinubu’s administration has an opportunity to address these concerns through transparent decisions, credible explanations and demonstrable respect for institutional independence.
The security chiefs have an equally important opportunity to establish their professional neutrality through conduct that can be independently examined, not merely through declarations made before television cameras.
The ultimate question is not whether the President has instructed them to conduct credible elections.
The question is whether they will uphold the Constitution even when doing so requires confronting politically influential individuals.
That is the true meaning of institutional independence.
A ROAD CAN BE DIVERTED, BUT JUSTICE MUST NEVER LOSE ITS DIRECTION
Nigeria stands at another important democratic moment.
The Lagos–Calabar Coastal Highway must be assessed according to sound engineering, environmental sustainability, economic prudence and public accountability.
The 2027 elections must be conducted according to constitutional principles, impartial law enforcement and the unrestricted right of eligible Nigerians to make their political choices.
These responsibilities should never become bargaining instruments in political calculations.
The country cannot afford a situation in which public infrastructure becomes a source of enduring resentment while elections become occasions for fear and uncertainty.
Our leaders must understand that the true strength of government is not measured by the power it possesses, but by the confidence it earns.
And our security institutions must remember that they were established to defend the Nigerian people, not to shield any political party from democratic competition.
A highway may be diverted because of difficult terrain. But democracy must never be diverted because of political convenience.
A road may change its course to avoid erosion. But our institutions must never surrender their integrity to the erosion of political interference.
And above all, let us remember this:
The greatest betrayal of a nation is not simply the abandonment of a promised road. It is the abandonment of the citizens whose hopes, rights and trust make government legitimate.
Nigeria deserves roads that connect its people, institutions that protect its citizens and elections that reflect their freely expressed choices.
For when a government loses the trust of its people, no highway, however magnificent, can bridge that divide.
Chris Okobah PhD
Award winning Author | Legal Scholar | Human Rights Advocate
Please share this article if you want a better country
About the Author
