June 20 2026

A Maritime Project at the Centre of a Growing Debate

THE controversy surrounding the proposed Ibom Deep Seaport has once again moved into public focus following a detailed rebuttal by legal practitioner and stakeholder Emem Benson to recent arguments dismissing claims that the project was relocated from its originally envisioned location in Ibaka.

The latest exchange highlights a dispute that has persisted for years and extends beyond questions of geography. At its core are competing interpretations of the project’s history, the meaning of official government actions, the role of technical studies, and the extent to which public authorities have adequately explained decisions affecting one of Akwa Ibom State’s most ambitious infrastructure projects.

Supporters of the current project configuration insist that the Federal Executive Council approved the existing Seaside location after rigorous technical evaluation and that no relocation ever occurred. Critics argue that years of governmental representations, public investments and stakeholder engagements clearly established Ibaka as the original project location and that the public has yet to receive satisfactory explanations regarding subsequent changes.

Contesting the Historical Record

A major focus of Benson’s response is what he describes as an attempt to reinterpret the project’s history.

According to him, the controversy is not rooted in opposition to development by the Oron people, but in concerns that a project historically conceived, promoted and marketed as the “Ibaka Deep Seaport” gradually evolved into something different without sufficient public transparency.

He argues that for more than a decade, official communications, investor engagements, government presentations and development initiatives consistently identified Ibaka as the host location of the deep seaport project.

The question raised by critics is straightforward: if Ibaka was never the approved location, why was the project publicly known and promoted under that name for such a long period?

This argument challenges recent assertions that the approved seaport location has remained unchanged since federal approvals were granted.

Certificate of Occupancy and Government Actions

Among the strongest points advanced by Benson is the historical significance of the Certificate of Occupancy handed over by former Akwa Ibom Governor Godswill Akpabio to the Nigerian Ports Authority in 2011.

According to records cited by Benson, the ceremony was presented at the time as a major milestone in the development of the Ibaka Deep Seaport. Media reports from the period described land acquisition, master planning and federal engagement activities specifically linked to the Ibaka location.

For critics of the current narrative, these actions constitute evidence that Ibaka was more than a symbolic name. They argue that governments do not typically acquire extensive land, prepare master plans and conduct investor discussions around locations that have no substantive connection to a proposed project.

The issue therefore remains whether those historical actions represented preliminary planning exercises or reflected a deeper governmental commitment to Ibaka as the intended location.

The Debate Over Technical Studies

The controversy also centres on competing interpretations of technical reports and site-selection processes.

Benson points to a 2013 Federal Government-sponsored Due Diligence Report which reportedly evaluated several locations using internationally recognised maritime criteria, including navigational safety, dredging requirements, operational costs and expansion potential.

According to his argument, the report ranked the Okposo area within Ibaka Bay as the preferred option.

He questions how a location that reportedly emerged as the leading candidate during one phase of technical evaluation later lost that status.

Supporters of the current project location maintain that later assessments and the Final Outline Business Case identified the Seaside location as the most technically and commercially viable site for a modern deep seaport capable of handling large vessels and supporting long-term expansion.

The existence of differing interpretations of technical assessments continues to fuel calls for greater disclosure of all relevant studies and evaluation criteria.

Questions of Governance and Transparency

Beyond technical arguments, the dispute raises broader governance questions.

Infrastructure projects of this scale often involve evolving feasibility studies, changing commercial realities and adjustments to original plans. However, stakeholders argue that public trust depends on clear communication regarding why such changes occur.

Critics contend that concerns about transparency persist because official explanations have not fully reconciled historical representations of the project with later developments.

Supporters of the government’s position counter that multiple reviews, including federal examinations of petitions alleging relocation, have concluded that the approved location remains consistent with formal approvals.

The debate therefore reflects a broader challenge facing major public projects: balancing technical decision-making with public accountability.

Economic Stakes Remain High

The controversy is occurring against the backdrop of immense economic expectations.

The Ibom Deep Seaport is widely regarded as a potentially transformative infrastructure project capable of stimulating industrial growth, attracting investment, creating jobs and strengthening Nigeria’s maritime sector.

Both supporters and critics of the current project framework agree on one point: the state requires a successful deep seaport.

Where they differ is on whether the process that produced the current project configuration adequately respected the historical record, technical evidence and expectations of affected communities.

Beyond the Dispute

As new arguments emerge from both sides, the central issue may ultimately be resolved not through competing public commentaries but through greater access to documentary evidence, technical reports and decision-making records.

For many observers, the controversy underscores the importance of transparency in infrastructure development. The larger challenge is ensuring that public confidence is maintained while a project of strategic economic significance moves forward.

Whether viewed through the lens of maritime engineering, regional development or public policy, the Ibaka Deep Seaport debate remains one of the most consequential infrastructure discussions in Akwa Ibom’s recent history.