

Aviation industry experts have strongly criticized the federal government’s proposed N100.5 billion reimbursement plan for the construction of the Muhammadu Buhari International Cargo Airport in Damaturu, describing the multi-billion-naira payout as an unnecessary burden on national finances.
The pushback follows President Bola Tinubu’s formal request to the Senate seeking legislative approval to issue a promissory note through the Debt Management Office to refund the Yobe State Government.
According to the executive communication, the Federal Executive Council had previously approved the federal takeover and reimbursement of the facility during an extraordinary meeting in May 2023.
However, the proposed transaction has reignited intense debate among aviation analysts regarding the economic viability, inflated costs, and long-term sustainability of state-funded aviation infrastructure across the country.
Industry stakeholders argue that while state governments maintain the legal prerogative to construct infrastructure within their territories, such capital-intensive projects must be driven by rigorous economic feasibility studies, realistic passenger traffic projections, and sustainable operational models rather than the expectation of federal bailouts.
READ ALSO: FRSC Warns Social Media Distraction Could Trigger Road Crashes
Speaking on the development, aviation analyst and Aviation Round Table member Olumide Ohunayo questioned the wisdom of sub-national governments embarking on mega-projects that exceed local economic capacities.
“We must agree that most airports start as social projects. However, when a state goes ahead and builds an airport that is far bigger than its economy can sustain, the end result is situations like this reimbursement controversy,” Ohunayo stated.
He warned that the implicit promise of federal reimbursement creates perverse incentives for states to launch politically motivated projects ahead of elections, potentially encouraging inflated contract costs and compromised construction standards.
Similar concerns have been echoed by regulatory authorities. The Managing Director of the Federal Airports Authority of Nigeria, Olubunmi Kuku, recently cautioned sub-national leaders against speculative aviation spending, noting that less than ten percent of the Nigerian population currently utilizes air transport.
Analyzing the legal and constitutional dimensions of the controversy, Samuel Caulcrick, former rector of the Nigeria College of Aviation Technology, pointed to the clear demarcation of powers established by the 1999 Constitution.
Caulcrick noted that aviation and airports fall exclusively under Item 3 of Part I of the Second Schedule, placing regulatory oversight firmly within the federal purview. While state governments possess the latitude to construct, finance, and maintain physical airstrips or airports locally, they lack the constitutional authority to regulate operations, control airspace, or issue aviation licenses.
“This means states can build, but cannot regulate; while state governments can construct, fund, and maintain airports or airstrips within their territories, they do not possess the constitutional authority to regulate aviation operations, control airspace, or issue aviation licenses,” Caulcrick explained.
As the Senate reviews the President’s promissory note request, critics maintain that the ongoing debate highlights the urgent need for stricter federal oversight and fiscal prudence regarding how public funds are deployed for sub-national infrastructure takeovers.

