Ibom Deep Seaport locale: Separating facts from fiction

By Celestine Mel

An African proverb teaches that no matter how long a log remains submerged in a river, it will never become a crocodile. Embedded in that wisdom is a timeless truth that repetition cannot transform fiction into fact.

A falsehood does not become legitimate simply because it is amplified across digital platforms, wrapped in technical language, or endorsed by influential voices.

Proponents of the “illusion of truth” theory argue that a lie repeated often enough can eventually gain public acceptance. Yet that observation speaks only to human belief, not reality.

Truth possesses a stubborn permanence. Like a tsetse fly perched on the scrotum of a cow, it remains an irritation that cannot be wished away. Facts exhibit the same stubbornness. They remain exactly what they are, regardless of the narratives constructed around them.

This reality lies at the heart of the controversy surrounding the Ibom Deep Seaport Project and the persistent claim that it was secretly and illegally “relocated” from Ibaka to another location within Akwa Ibom State’s coastal corridor.

For years, Chief Edet Nkpubre, a respected son of the Oron Nation and accomplished political figure, vigorously advanced this claim. More recently, Emem Benson, Esq., revived the same narrative, once again alleging that the seaport had been moved away from Ibaka.

Ordinarily, such claims would not warrant a response. However, their recurring appearance whenever meaningful progress is made on the project has generated unnecessary tensions, inflamed regional sentiments, and diverted attention from what could become one of the most transformative economic infrastructure projects in Akwa Ibom’s history.

The problem is that the allegation collapses under the weight of documentary evidence.

At the centre of this pseudo-controversy lies a simple question: How do you relocate a project from a location where it was never officially situated in the first place?

The answer is straightforward but inconvenient for some. At no time did any Federal Executive Council (FEC) resolution, federal gazette, ministerial directive, or final feasibility report designate Ibaka as the approved site of the Ibom Deep Seaport. Since the constitutional authority to establish and designate deep seaports resides exclusively with the Federal Government under the Exclusive Legislative List, the claim that the project was later “relocated” from Ibaka is legally, logically, and procedurally unsustainable.

The history of the project is remarkably clear.

In May 2015, the Federal Executive Council approved the Outline Business Case (OBC) for the Ibom Deep Seaport and authorized the procurement process. This milestone was achieved during the administration of former Governor Godswill Akpabio after years of technical studies, regulatory reviews, and stakeholder engagements.

Importantly, the approval was not the product of political preference. It emerged from recommendations submitted by the Federal Ministry of Transportation following extensive work by the Ministerial Project Development Steering Committee.

This committee was not a creation of the Akwa Ibom State Government either. It was a federal task team comprising experts from relevant national agencies alongside state representatives. Its mandate was to review the Final Outline Business Case prepared by internationally recognised maritime consultants and advise the FEC on the most suitable location within the project’s catchment area.

The committee’s recommendation was unequivocal: the “Seaside” location. That recommendation was subsequently ratified and approved by the Federal Executive Council.

The selection process was neither arbitrary nor perfunctory. International maritime consulting firms, including MBTS and Felak, were engaged to conduct comprehensive feasibility studies across five potential locations: Oron, Tom Shot, Okposo-Ibaka, West Point, and the Seaside site.

Their assignment was simple: identify, using scientific and engineering criteria, the most technically viable location for a world-class deep seaport. They selected the Seaside site.

That approval, more than a decade ago, is the same Ibom Deep Seaport location being developed today, occupying the identical geographical coordinates.

The consultants evaluated each location using globally recognised maritime engineering parameters, including bathymetry, hydrological characteristics, sedimentation patterns, navigational safety, environmental impact, operational efficiency, scalability, and long-term commercial viability. Particular attention was paid to natural water depth and future dredging requirements.

In modern port economics, these variables determine whether a seaport becomes a commercially sustainable asset or an expensive white elephant.

Following their evaluations, the consultants concluded that the Seaside location offered the most favourable conditions for a world-class deep seaport capable of accommodating New Panamax-class vessels while maintaining long-term operational efficiency.

These findings were incorporated into the Final Outline Business Case completed in 2014, which subsequently formed the basis of FEC’s approval in 2015.

This chronology matters because much of the relocation narrative relies on preliminary baseline documents that were provided to the task team at the commencement of its assignment. Those documents expressly identified themselves as preliminary and recommended further engineering, environmental, and hydrological investigations.

To elevate the assumptions contained in a preliminary working paper above the findings of a scientifically validated report approved by the Federal Executive Council is akin to arguing that a student’s rough notes should carry greater authority than the final examination script submitted for grading. The argument simply does not survive scrutiny.

More importantly, this matter underwent exhaustive federal review long before the administration of Governor Pastor Umo Eno.

Following repeated petitions alleging the “illegal relocation” of the project from Ibaka Bay to Ibeno Bay, the Federal Ministry of Transportation conducted what it described as an extensive in-depth investigation into the project’s history and approval trajectory.

In an official communication dated April 2021 (Reference No. FMT/0992/S.3/VOL.II/273) addressed to Ibritam and Associates, counsel to the Oron Union, and titled *”Re: Illegal Relocation of Ibaka Deep Seaport from Ibaka Bay to Ibeno Bay,”* the Ministry stated:

> “I am directed to refer to your petition reference IDSP/02/21/MOT on the above subject and to inform you that the Ministry conducted an extensive in-depth investigation with a view to establishing the veracity or otherwise of the allegation. The petition was subsequently found to be lacking in merit and unsupportive of the reality on the ground.”

Those words leave little room for ambiguity.

The Ministry went further:

“You are enjoined to advise your client to support and cooperate with Akwa Ibom State government in its quest to successfully and timely execute the project for the overall interest of citizens of the state and the Nigerian economy.”

That position is decisive. The Federal Ministry of Transportation is the apex supervisory authority for maritime infrastructure policy and regulation in Nigeria. Had there been any unlawful deviation from an approved plan, the Ministry would have been duty-bound to intervene.

Instead, it formally validated the process and dismissed the allegation.

Beyond the immediate controversy lies a broader concern. The relocation narrative implicitly asks the public to believe that international consultants, federal regulators, technocrats, civil servants, and successive state administrations collectively conspired to endorse a false location recommendation despite years of public scrutiny. Such an extraordinary allegation requires extraordinary evidence, which to date has not been produced. Ironically, the controversy has also created a false dichotomy between Ibaka and the approved seaport location, as though the success of one must come at the expense of the other. Nothing could be further from reality.

Ibaka remains one of Akwa Ibom’s most strategic maritime assets. Its natural advantages make it suitable for shipbuilding, marine engineering services, ship repairs, fisheries infrastructure, logistics operations, and specialised bulk cargo facilities. It remains a critical component of the broader Ibom Industrial City ecosystem and the state’s blue economy aspirations.

Economic development is not a zero-sum game. Lagos offers a useful example. The ports of Apapa and Tin Can Island are physically located within specific local government areas, yet their economic benefits extend far beyond those boundaries. Their impact supports logistics corridors, manufacturing clusters, transportation networks, and businesses stretching from Apapa to Lekki and deep into Ogun State.

The same principle applies to Akwa Ibom. A successful deep seaport will generate opportunities that transcend municipal boundaries, creating economic benefits across the entire state and beyond. The real threat to prosperity is not geography; it is delay.

The greatest damage caused by these recurring false narratives is not merely the bad blood they generate. The more serious consequence is the erosion of investor confidence. Global capital is notoriously risk-averse. Investors gravitate toward certainty and flee from controversy.

Every manufactured narrative increases perceived risk and undermines the stability and predictability that major investors require before committing millions of dollars to long-term infrastructure projects. To our chagrin.

It is therefore deeply counterproductive that each time tangible progress is made on the seaport, the same allegations resurface. Worse still, when such controversies slow development, the public often turns around and blames the government for the delay. Yet every delay carries costs such as postponed investments, deferred industrialisation, fewer jobs, delayed skills development, and lost opportunities for thousands of young people who could become tomorrow’s maritime engineers, logistics specialists, and industrial technicians.

History is replete with communities that spent years quarrelling over development opportunities, only to watch those opportunities migrate to more welcoming shores. That is a lesson Akwa Ibom cannot afford to relearn.

The documentary record is unambiguous. The Federal Executive Council approved the Seaside location in 2015 following rigorous technical evaluations. Subsequent federal investigations found no evidence whatsoever of an unlawful relocation. No official federal instrument has ever identified Ibaka as the approved site of the Ibom Deep Seaport.

The conclusion is therefore inescapable: there was no relocation because there was never an initially approved location from which to relocate. The time has come to retire a controversy unsupported by evidence and redirect our collective energies toward building what could become the most transformative economic asset in the history of Akwa Ibom State and one of the most significant maritime infrastructure projects in Nigeria.

These are the facts. Every other narrative is corrosive one-legged wishful thinking, dressed up as history.

Celestine Mel writes from Abuja, FCT.