tpiah:



Your argument is too simplistic and more likely to stoke tribal sentiment, because you're trying to confirm the allegations of intentional neglect without considering other factors.

Being a seaport had nothing to do with Lagos' development, I suppose? That's like saying moving the US capital from Philadelphia and New York to Washington DC was because other parts of the country werent being developed.

One of the greatest problems Nigeria has is the tribal close minded mentality of being out to "get" other tribes and at the same time being convinced other tribes are out to "get" you. A relic of the old headhunting days no doubt.

This leads to communities struggling to put "their" people in crucial political positions in so "their" candidate has a portfolio to develop ONLY his tribal area and nowhere else. Thus for most of them, their hands are tied even before they get there. If such an individual doesnt promote only his own area, he/s seen as a traitor by most of his tribesmen.

Like i said, look at the topography. The capital was moved to Abuja for reasons of security, from what I heard. Lugard had wanted to place it in Kaduna but decided on lagos instead.

Lagos isnt the only city in Nigeria that has some level of development- if you think otherwise then you dont know much about the country. Lagos may have the most skyscrapers (maybe), but there are other places with high population and which have a fair standard of living.

The type of delta we have in Nigeria is either a wave or river dominated type. The coastline changes as you move west- these are all natural factors and not man made. Same way the topography changes as you move north.

I love you -

Well Said

tpiah:

Your argument is too simplistic and more likely to stoke tribal sentiment, because you're trying to confirm the allegations of intentional neglect without considering other factors.

Being a seaport had nothing to do with Lagos' development, I suppose? That's like saying moving the US capital from Philadelphia and New York to Washington DC was because other parts of the country werent being developed.

One of the greatest problems Nigeria has is the tribal close minded mentality of being out to "get" other tribes and at the same time being convinced other tribes are out to "get" you. A relic of the old headhunting days no doubt.

This leads to communities struggling to put "their" people in crucial political positions in so "their" candidate has a portfolio to develop ONLY his tribal area and nowhere else. Thus for most of them, their hands are tied even before they get there. If such an individual doesnt promote only his own area, he/s seen as a traitor by most of his tribesmen.

Like i said, look at the topography. The capital was moved to Abuja for reasons of security, from what I heard. Lugard had wanted to place it in Kaduna but decided on lagos instead.

Lagos isnt the only city in Nigeria that has some level of development- if you think otherwise then you dont know much about the country. Lagos may have the most skyscrapers (maybe), but there are other places with high population and which have a fair standard of living.

The type of delta we have in Nigeria is either a wave or river dominated type. The coastline changes as you move west- these are all natural factors and not manmade. Same way the topography changes as you move north.

Your response is headed off in the wrong direction. I have no interest in stoking tribal sentiments in whatever form. I did not comment on the reason for moving the capital away from Lagos, and was only commenting on the effect. All would agree that if Lagos was still the capital, Abuja would be far from the level of development it is presently. The primary source of the development of Abuja is because it is the seat of power.

As much as I love Lagos, the truth is that its choice as capital was poor. The British probably chose it for their own political and military needs (it gave them an exit via the sea, as opposed to inland where they could easily be surrounded by opposing forces). Lagos being a terminus city would have developed significantly on its own, but its location as the federal capital city (because of the centralized style of government) aided it with influx of funds and projects, at the expense of other cities. For your information, I have visited all ( and lived in most) major cities in Nigeria. Lagos is not the only city with a substantial level of development in Nigeria, but is definitely the most developed, grasping the lion share in most areas of interest.  The result: the smallest state has the largest population, and hence an exceedingly high population density when compared to other cities. The consequent strain on amenities as resulted in several social vices.

What you missed entirely was the point of my initial post, which was the benefit of spreading development around. The more evenly spread the development is, the lesser the population migration to urban centers and the higher the standard of living of the common man. Nigerians are always too quick to try to add to what is already full. People feel the most developed city should always be the state capital, whereas it is often more beneficial otherwise. Lagos should have been like California, who for all its economic prowess, was never the seat of government.

The dredging of the Niger, if done following due process, will be beneficial to all beyond the people of Ontisha, if only simply for the fact that it spreads the development.

how can we not consider what the effects of dredging would be to the little villeges that depend on their little creeks for their livelihood?
how can we not consider what dredging might do to aquatic life?
how about its positive effect on transportation? even when you want to re-dredge an already dredged river you consider the effects on everybody both upstream and downstream.

@kimire.theres nothing like WAZOBIA.maiduguri is not hausa incase u didnt know.my prob is that ph ports are deliberately being neglected by fg.how do we know if the new ports won't suffer same fate

keeping the unity of Nigeria includes understanding that which is in control of the central Government

There is no point boasting to keep Nigeria one and then at the slightest opportunity you accuse the rest of the country of trying to consume you.

If everybody opposed every FG project that passed through their backyard, we will still be living in 14th century

EIA should be undertaken and what should be of utmost concern is the safety of those who will be directly affected and the National Interest of Nigeria . . . . . . . there is simply no regional dimension to it . . . .that is what one Nigeria is all about.

There is no point paying lip service to United Nigeria. (Federal Roads and Waterways are the property of the Federal Republic of Nigeria)

biina:

Your response is headed off in the wrong direction. I have no interest in stoking tribal sentiments in whatever form. I did not comment on the reason for moving the capital away from Lagos, and was only commenting on the effect. All would agree that if Lagos was still the capital, Abuja would be far from the level of development it is presently. The primary source of the development of Abuja is because it is the seat of power.

As much as I love Lagos, the truth is that its choice as capital was poor. The British probably chose it for their own political and military needs (it gave them an exit via the sea, as opposed to inland where they could easily be surrounded by opposing forces). Lagos being a terminus city would have developed significantly on its own, but its location as the federal capital city (because of the centralized style of government) aided it with influx of funds and projects, at the expense of other cities. For your information, I have visited all ( and lived in most) major cities in Nigeria. Lagos is not the only city with a substantial level of development in Nigeria, but is definitely the most developed, grasping the lion share in most areas of interest.  The result: the smallest state has the largest population, and hence an exceedingly high population density when compared to other cities. The consequent strain on amenities as resulted in several social vices.

What you missed entirely was the point of my initial post, which was the benefit of spreading development around. The more evenly spread the development is, the lesser the population migration to urban centers and the higher the standard of living of the common man. Nigerians are always too quick to try to add to what is already full. People feel the most developed city should always be the state capital, whereas it is often more beneficial otherwise. Lagos should have been like California, who for all its economic prowess, was never the seat of government.

The dredging of the Niger, if done following due process, will be beneficial to all beyond the people of Ontisha, if only simply for the fact that it spreads the development.

and once again, YOU are missing the entire point of what a capital ought to be.

This isnt about your alleged love for Lagos- its all this unecessary love for sentiment that blinds Africans to reality.

[b]Every capital in the world is the subject to development.[/b]Since a capital is likely to draw people from different areas and walks of life.

When the British came, some areas were already highly urbanized- Benin city is one example. The Yorubas in particular have always had a high percentage of town dwellers, as various records and oral accounts show. The topography of the west is one reason for that. In the east there were Onitsha, PH, Calabar

Kano and Kaduna were already urban centers before the British came. Lokoja, where Lugard was headquarted, isnt on the coast. Neither is Jos, which many whites like for the climate.

Washington DC is also located on the extreme eastern edge of the US - what's your explanation for that ?

Lagos is a Portuguese word meaning lagoon. There's a town in Portugal called lagos which used to be a slave port. Dont know if you see any connection there.

The British may have told you they chose Lagos as the capital because they wanted an easy escape route from the peaceful lagos natives, but I 'm sure other factors like shipping, the nature of the coast, and trade routes also came into play.

California was never the seat of government- Lagos and some other places were. So I dont get your comparison here. Neither do I understand your weeping over Lagos being made the capital. During the Gold Rush, people from all over the US and abroad, rushed to California to make their fortunes.  The place later developed. So either way, you're still off base with your analogy. Not to mention the US is way bigger than Nigeria and most of the states developed at their own pace. There are still places in the US where the state capital is the most urbanized- with most other places relatively rural.

As I pointed out, other parts of Nigeria besides Lagos are also urban. They may not have as many skyscrapers as lagos but that doesnt mean they're all hamlets containing only goats and chickens.

tpiah:

and once again, YOU are missing the entire point of what a capital ought to be.

This isnt about your alleged love for Lagos- its all this unecessary love for sentiment that blinds Africans to reality.

[b]Every capital in the world is the subject to development.[/b]Since a capital is likely to draw people from different areas and walks of life.

When the British came, some areas were already highly urbanized- Benin city is one example. The Yorubas in particular have always had a high percentage of town dwellers, as various records and oral accounts show. The topography of the west is one reason for that. In the east there were Onitsha, PH, Calabar

Kano and Kaduna were already urban centers before the British came. Lokoja, where Lugard was headquarted, isnt on the coast. Neither is Jos, which many whites like for the climate.

Washington DC is also located on the eastern edge of the US- what's your explanation for that ?

Lagos is a Portuguese word meaning lagoon. There's a town in Portugal called lagos which used to be a slave port. Dont know if you see any connection there.

The British may have told you they chose Lagos as the capital because they wanted an easy escape route from the peaceful lagos natives, but I 'm sure other factors like shipping, the nature of the coast, and trade routes also came into play.

California was never the seat of government- Lagos and some other places were. So I dont get your comparison here. Neither do I understand your weeping over Lagos being made the capital.

As I pointed out, other parts of Nigeria besides Lagos are also urbanized. They may not have as many skyscrapers as lagos but that doesnt mean they're all hamlets containing only goats and chickens.

Just to buttress what has just been posted. Historically one will find, cities past and present esp close to water ports are generally more developed than the rest of the state or country

Every body here is missing the point. The reason why people are comparing and contrasting development of lagos and other urban areas is the skewed nature of our federalism which we inherited from the British. you can not compare the way American cities developed to the way our cities developed. Most American cities developed along with their capacity to generate wealth, and the common wealth (taxes)is used to develop the capital, but here the wealth generated from the states and local Govt are seized by the federal govt. and used to develop the capital to the detriment of areas generating the wealth.

For example it is criminal for the federal Government to generate revenue from Taxes on cigarette and alcohol and use the revenue to develop Abuja while leaving the state govt to grapple with the problems caused by cigarette and alcohol.

Because of the sharing of cheap revenue from oil, most of the states are not ready to work to generate revenue and are therefore unviable states. Also every local govt. wants to be a state not because of the revenue they can add to the national purse but because they want a larger share of oil money.

tpiah:

and once again, YOU are missing the entire point of what a capital ought to be.

This isnt about your alleged love for Lagos- its all this unecessary love for sentiment that blinds Africans to reality.

[b]Every capital in the world is the subject to development.[/b]Since a capital is likely to draw people from different areas and walks of life.

When the British came, some areas were already highly urbanized- Benin city is one example. The Yorubas in particular have always had a high percentage of town dwellers, as various records and oral accounts show. The topography of the west is one reason for that. In the east there were Onitsha, PH, Calabar

Kano and Kaduna were already urban centers before the British came. Lokoja, where Lugard was headquarted, isnt on the coast. Neither is Jos, which many whites like for the climate.

Washington DC is also located on the extreme eastern edge of the US - what's your explanation for that ?

Lagos is a Portuguese word meaning lagoon. There's a town in Portugal called lagos which used to be a slave port. Dont know if you see any connection there.

The British may have told you they chose Lagos as the capital because they wanted an easy escape route from the peaceful lagos natives, but I 'm sure other factors like shipping, the nature of the coast, and trade routes also came into play.

California was never the seat of government- Lagos and some other places were. So I dont get your comparison here. Neither do I understand your weeping over Lagos being made the capital. During the Gold Rush, people from all over the US and abroad, rushed to California to make their fortunes.  The place later developed. So either way, you're still off base with your analogy. Not to mention the US is way bigger than Nigeria and most of the states developed at their own pace. There are still places in the US where the state capital is the most urbanized- with most other places relatively rural.

As I pointed out, other parts of Nigeria besides Lagos are also urban. They may not have as many skyscrapers as lagos but that doesnt mean they're all hamlets containing only goats and chickens.

and now you have lost me completely, as I simply don't see the point you are making.

A few questions that might help me clarify your position

1. Do you feel Lagos is more suited to being the capital vs Abuja (or any other city)?
2. Do you feel Lagos wouldn't have developed if it wasn't the federal capital?
3. Do you feel there is another city more (or equally) developed than Lagos?
4. Do you prefer we concentrate development in a few already developed cities or spread it around?

biina:

and now you have lost me completely, as I simply don't see the point you are making.

A few questions that might help me clarify your position

1. Do you feel Lagos is more suited to being the capital vs Abuja (or any other city)?
2. Do you feel Lagos wouldn't have developed if it wasn't the federal capital?
3. Do you feel there is another city more (or equally) developed than Lagos?
4. Do you prefer we concentrate development in a few already developed cities or spread it around?

I am just curious as to what you mean by the part in bold. We need to "spread development"? What does that really mean though? Sorry, it just sounds like some nightmarish quota system. People who want to develop should stand up, get involved and hold their government more accountable so that their government invests in ventures that would make the area more conducive for business and development. Whatever little development that is actually occuring in the country called Nigeria should be suported and not hindered or manipulated so the development "spreads". Are we to blame the underdevelopment of other parts of the country on the governor of lagos who is actually doing something?

Sky Blue:

I am just curious as to what you mean by the part in bold. We need to "spread development"? What does that really mean though? Sorry, it just sounds like some nightmarish quota system. People who want to develop should stand up, get involved and hold their government more accountable so that their government invests in ventures that would make the area more conducive for business and development. Whatever little development that is actually occuring in the country called Nigeria should be suported and not hindered or manipulated so the development "spreads". Are we to blame the underdevelopment of other parts of the country on the governor of lagos who is actually doing something?

It is nothing like a quota system, but rather an argument that the investment of public funds in certain cities should be done with consideration for the effects of such projects on the demographics and standard of living of associated regions. I do not subscribe to the approach of the government investing in that which does not need public funds simply because it is cheaper or more visible.

A local example (to avoid the tribal sentiments some wish to attach to the discourse): the Lagos state government, under Bola Tinubu, converted the Ikeja General Hospital, which was the top general hospital in Lagos state, to a teaching hospital for the Lagos state university, as opposed to actually developing the General hospital at Ojo, the latter being a move that would have been more beneficial to the local community, and the state as a whole. The Ikeja GH was popular and was already receiving substantial support from the private sector, like from the late Sir Mobolaji Bank Anthony and the establishments of the Ikeja industrial area. The state governor unwisely went after the low hanging fruit.

The water filling algorithm should be the exception and not the norm

wirinet:

Every body here is missing the point. The reason why people are comparing and contrasting development of lagos and other urban areas is the skewed nature of our federalism which we inherited from the British. you can not compare the way American cities developed to the way our cities developed. Most American cities developed along with their capacity to generate wealth, and the common wealth (taxes)is used to develop the capital, but here the wealth generated from the states and local Govt are seized by the federal govt. and used to develop the capital to the detriment of areas generating the wealth.

For example it is criminal for the federal Government to generate revenue from Taxes on cigarette and alcohol and use the revenue to develop Abuja while leaving the state govt to grapple with the problems caused by cigarette and alcohol.

Because of the sharing of cheap revenue from oil, most of the states are not ready to work to generate revenue and are therefore unviable states. Also every local govt. wants to be a state not because of the revenue they can add to the national purse but because they want a larger share of oil money.

That has always been my point.Port harcourt is supposed to have more federal investments because that is where all the money comes from.Warri,Bonny,Oron and Yenagoa also deserve developement and federal presence.If cities in Nigeria were autonomous or we were practising true federalism,Abuja and Lagos would have just been like anyother town.The Niger delta cities and some southeastern cities would have been much more developed.

biina:

and now you have lost me completely, as I simply don't see the point you are making.

A few questions that might help me clarify your position

1. Do you feel Lagos is more suited to being the capital vs Abuja (or any other city)?
2. Do you feel Lagos wouldn't have developed if it wasn't the federal capital?
3. Do you feel there is another city more (or equally) developed than Lagos?
4. Do you prefer we concentrate development in a few already developed cities or spread it around?

as usual, you missed my point entirely.

I see no reason why Lagos should take the blame for what you're calling the underdevelopment of the rest of the country. You're also ignoring the fact that there was a civil war which is still being fought today.

People should hold their state govts accountable for any development or lack of it thereof.




You may also want to check this thread where someone is complaining about the flyovers being planned for his state

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-273315.0.html




Check wirinet's post here and note the bolded. Lagos didnt prevent anybody from developing their area. If Lagos happened to be more cosmopolitan in your opinion, than everywhere else, then look at the geography of the region in order to draw an informed conclusion.

wirinet:

Every body here is missing the point. The reason why people are comparing and contrasting development of lagos and other urban areas is the skewed nature of our federalism which we inherited from the British. you can not compare the way American cities developed to the way our cities developed. Most American cities developed along with their capacity to generate wealth, and the common wealth (taxes)is used to develop the capital, but here the wealth generated from the states and local Govt are seized by the federal govt. and used to develop the capital to the detriment of areas generating the wealth.

For example it is criminal for the federal Government to generate revenue from Taxes on cigarette and alcohol and use the revenue to develop Abuja while leaving the state govt to grapple with the problems caused by cigarette and alcohol.

Because of the sharing of cheap revenue from oil, most of the states are not ready to work to generate revenue and are therefore unviable states. Also every local govt. wants to be a state not because of the revenue they can add to the national purse but because they want a larger share of oil money.

I don't really know why everyone is arguing about this development thing or lack of it thereof. The point is that Federal money should be used wisely to develop strategic things that well help the country as a whole and also bring both Macro and Micro development to the cities/communities involved. I also feel that some major projects in some small communities actually lead to development and advancement of those communities. Concentrating everything in a small city or state will eventually lead to social and population problems, and perhaps Xenophobia from the host community as millions will migrate into that area for greener pasture. This is how major cities in America Developed. Some companies moved into some locations strategically because of convenience, natural and human resources and because those states at the time knew the economic impact of those projects to the development of their state.
Dredging river Niger and having some kind of port inland helps everybody Nigeria directly or Indirectly. If we start to consider all the minute environmental impact of everything we try to do in Nigeria, we will have to go back to the stone age. And since when did the Nigeria government start having interest in the impact of what it does to its people?? If they really cared, they should start from the destruction they have done in Niger Delta.

tpiah:

as usual, you missed my point entirely.

I see no reason why Lagos should take the blame for what you're calling the underdevelopment of the rest of the country. You're also ignoring the fact that there was a civil war which is still being fought today.

People should hold their state govts accountable for any development or lack of it thereof.

You may also want to check this thread where someone is complaining about the flyovers being planned for his state

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-273315.0.html

Check wirinet's post here and note the bolded. Lagos didnt prevent anybody from developing their area. If Lagos happened to be more cosmopolitan in your opinion, than everywhere else, then look at the geography of the region in order to draw an informed conclusion.

You did not answer the questions that could help clarify your views, and then found me guilty of misunderstanding you - ironic in the least.

I do not blame Lagos for the lack of development of other cities, but its choice as a federal capital didn't help the others either. Again, all I said was that moving the capital away from Lagos was beneficial to the development of others, that does not equate to saying that it was entirely responsible for their lack of development.

The two most developed cities in Nigeria are Lagos and Abuja; a coincidence that both were/are seats of the federal government? I think not. In the highly centralized military governments we have had in Nigeria, the bulk of public expenditure is done at the federal government level and minimal funds and discretion are available at the state and local government level. The level of development of Abuja defeats your argument that "If Lagos happened to be more cosmopolitan in your opinion, than everywhere else, then look at the geography of the region in order to draw an informed conclusion". Abuja was less developed than all the other major cities before it became the capital and the geography of the region has been unchanged. After becoming the FCT, it is now second to only Lagos in development. Should we look at the geography of Abuja to draw 'informed' conclusions? 

Abuja and Lagos are littered with federal government projects that have been highly beneficial to their developments: the international airports, the national theater and the festac accommodation; low cost government housing, etc. A prime example of the influx of funds the capital city receives is the current $1.7B proposed project to convert an 8-lane road to 10 lanes, when there are other cities in Nigeria that need good highways for effective interconnections.

I don't see the relevance of the civil war to the discussion. Lagos was the capital before the civil war. The growth of every other city in the different regions of Nigeria (Ibadan, Enugu, Port Harcourt, Kaduna, etc) has paled in comparison to Lagos, or is the civil war responsible for the slow growth of Ibadan. I am not saying Lagos wouldn't have developed if it wasn't the capital city. On the contrary, Lagos would have likely developed well on its own given its position as a terminus city (as this more relevant than the geography).

Moving the federal capital to Abuja help spread the development. If you disagree with the last statement, you can give your reasons, otherwise I don't see the point in continuing this discourse.

biina:

You did not answer the questions that could help clarify your views, and then found me guilty of misunderstanding you - ironic in the least.

I do not blame Lagos for the lack of development of other cities, but its choice as a federal capital didn't help the others either. Again, all I said was that moving the capital away from Lagos was beneficial to the development of others, that does not equate to saying that it was entirely responsible for their lack of development.

The two most developed cities in Nigeria are Lagos and Abuja; a coincidence that both were/are seats of the federal government? I think not. In the highly centralized military governments we have had in Nigeria, the bulk of public expenditure is done at the federal government level and minimal funds and discretion are available at the state and local government level. The level of development of Abuja defeats your argument that "If Lagos happened to be more cosmopolitan in your opinion, than everywhere else, then look at the geography of the region in order to draw an informed conclusion". Abuja was less developed than all the other major cities before it became the capital and the geography of the region has been unchanged. After becoming the FCT, it is now second to only Lagos in development. Should we look at the geography of Abuja to draw 'informed' conclusions? 

Abuja and Lagos are littered with federal government projects that have been highly beneficial to their developments: the international airports, the national theater and the festac accommodation; low cost government housing, etc. A prime example of the influx of funds the capital city receives is the current $1.7B proposed project to convert an 8-lane road to 10 lanes, when there are other cities in Nigeria that need good highways for effective interconnections.

I don't see the relevance of the civil war to the discussion. Lagos was the capital before the civil war. The growth of every other city in the different regions of Nigeria (Ibadan, Enugu, Port Harcourt, Kaduna, etc) has paled in comparison to Lagos, or is the civil war responsible for the slow growth of Ibadan. I am not saying Lagos wouldn't have developed if it wasn't the capital city. On the contrary, Lagos would have likely developed well on its own given its position as a terminus city (as this more relevant than the geography).

Moving the federal capital to Abuja help spread the development. If you disagree with the last statement, you can give your reasons, otherwise I don't see the point in continuing this discourse.

I'm not interested in playing word games with you- I'm only showing you the flaws in your logic.

Your questions are very rhetorical, and highly mischievous as well. I dont believe in crying over spilt milk, which is what you're trying to do here with all this "soul searching" and head banging over why Lagos was made the capital. I pointed out before- the capital could have also been Kaduna but it was changed to Lagos for whatever reason which I could care less about.  You're also bent on ignoring most of what I wrote, simply in order to prolong the argument.

No place in civilization without a capital- every LGA or group of five villages anywhere in Nigeria has a capital. Anyone can start accusing others of not making their own village the seat of admininstration.


The civil war is relevant because it made people more tribalistic than before.

The capital wasnt moved to Abuja in order to spread development there- it was moved for security reasons, unless you heard otherwise. Development will follow anywhere a capital is. So if they decide to move the capital to a tiny village in Togo tomorrow, rest assured the place will also develop.

Calabar isnt the federal capital, yet the place has developed and is still developing. Lagos is no longer the capital, yet development is still going on there. Likewise Kano, and other places.

People can halt development through politically motivated violence and rioting, but they rarely stop it completely.

If you had a choice between developing various places, wouldnt you perform a risk assessment and put your money where you're more likely to get secured returns.

I'm not saying you're not right about capitals being developed- however, blaming lagos for the underdevelopment in Nigeria as a whole, is rather extreme. Especially given the fact that Lagos itself was struggling with a huge burden of poverty, and overwhelmed by beggars, trash heaps and destitute people living under bridges. Its only recently that the govt has been trying to find a solution to these social problems, and under a heavy barrage of curses and criticism as well.

tpiah:

I'm not interested in playing word games with you- I'm only showing you the flaws in your logic.

Your questions are very rhetorical, and highly mischievous as well. I dont believe in crying over spilt milk, which is what you're trying to do here with all this "soul searching" and head banging over why Lagos was made the capital. I pointed out before- the capital could have also been Kaduna but it was changed to Lagos for whatever reason which I could care less about.  You're also bent on ignoring most of what I wrote, simply in order to prolong the argument.

No place in civilization without a capital- every LGA or group of five villages anywhere in Nigeria has a capital. Anyone can start accusing others of not making their own village the seat of admininstration.


The civil war is relevant because it made people more tribalistic than before.

The capital wasnt moved to Abuja in order to spread development there- it was moved for security reasons, unless you heard otherwise. Development will follow anywhere a capital is. So if they decide to move the capital to a tiny village in Togo tomorrow, rest assured the place will also develop.

Calabar isnt the federal capital, yet the place has developed and is still developing. Lagos is no longer the capital, yet development is still going on there. Likewise Kano, and other places.

People can halt development through politically motivated violence and rioting, but they rarely stop it completely.

If you had a choice between developing various places, wouldnt you perform a risk assessment and put your money where you're more likely to get secured returns.

I'm not saying you're not right about capitals being developed- however, blaming lagos for the underdevelopment in Nigeria as a whole, is rather extreme. Especially given the fact that Lagos itself was struggling with a huge burden of poverty, and overwhelmed by beggars, trash heaps and destitute people living under bridges. Its only recently that the govt has been trying to find a solution to these social problems, and under a heavy barrage of curses and criticism as well.

Point was never about why  Lagos was chosen as the capital, or why it was moved to Abuja. Nor did I say Lagos was responsible for all the problems of Nigeria. I only commented that the movement of the capital to Abuja allowed for the spreading of development, and that development being spread out was good for the nation. A flaw in my logic would mean that moving the capital to Abuja was a bad move or that concentrated development is better than distributed.

If you cannot but associate tribal sentiments with everything, or feel every comment/opinion is racially motivated,  then you are on your own, as I do not see why you keep trying to reduce the discussion to a tribal issue.

Anyways, since you accuse of intentionally prolonging the discussion, this would be my last response to you. It obviously pointless, if all I have said to clarify my position have only fallen on deaf ears.

You are free to believe what you may. Have a nice week

you do the same.

FG gets states' backing on River Niger dredging
By David Ogah and Odita Sunday

RIVER Niger's host state governments have finally endorsed the proposed dredging of the river from Baro in Niger to Warri in Delta State by the Federal Government. The N36 billion project is expected to commence next month while the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), which was conducted many years ago, is to be revalidated.

The result of the EIA then was favourable although it revealed some negligible negative impact, which could be managed by the government.

Commissioners for Transport and Environment from Delta, Edo, Niger, Imo, Kogi. Rivers and Bayelsa states had a parley with the Minister of Transport, Alhaji Ibrahim Bio, in Abuja last weekend over the dredging project and they all expressed their support which they described as laudable.

The Commissioner for Transport in Edo State was the first to register his support for the project when he commended the Federal Government for conceiving the idea to dredge the river for the benefit of the people in the host communities. He said the Benin people were already enjoying the positive impact of the river in the city that was dredged sometimes ago by the state government.

To Mrs. Comfort Chinwe Chukwu, Commissioner for Works and Transport in Imo State, the Federal Government would have to be commended for initiating the project that could transform the host communities.

"While I commend the Federal Government for this laudable project, I want to suggest that there is need for sensitisation in order to disabuse the minds of the local residents", she said as she advised on the need to the constitute committees that would highlight the benefit of the dredging to the rural dwellers.

Her Delta state counterpart, Mr. Penakeme Benafa, was more agitative, as he asked to know if the tributaries of the River Niger in Delta State would also be dredged to give the project the desired meaning to the people.

He also said if the government would provide alternative source of portable water to the communities along the river in the state since most of them depended on the river for their portable water.

"I want to thank the minister and the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria for this project. Delta State will be affected by this because we have about nine local governments along the River Niger. The dredging will definitely affect our fishing activities since our livelihood depends on fishing. The water will be polluted and we drink from the river. How are we going to be getting drinking water. The Escravos channel needs to be dredged for big ships to come into the ports".

The Commissioner for Transport in Rivers State also spoke for his people. He said: "The dredging of the River Niger has been in the pipeline for sometime now, but if the Federal Government wants to do it now, we have no choice than to support it even if it will have some negative effect on our communities since the gains will far outweigh the disadvantages. But we want to know if the dredging will include the removal of wrecks from the waterway".

Some Ijaw youth leaders were also at the ministerial parley in Abuja where they registered their support for the dredging project, which will hopefully commence next month.

Beki Apera is the president of Bayelsa Youth Federation. He said: "We once opposed the dredging, but I will now go home to convince our youths because we have been properly briefed and informed about the dredging. We will tell them not to kidnap while the dredging last because it is of benefit to us".

The Director in charge of EIA at the Federal Ministry of Environment, Dr. Oluwole Ameyan, said one of the conditions to be satisfied before the commencement of the dredging was the revalidation of the EIA report carried out many years ago since the various variable then may have changed.

He said the only authentic EIA on the project was the one earlier conducted because it was based on a lot of modelling.

According to him, the project can not commence without the validation of the EIA "as the variables in the earlier report are likely to have changed by now". He also said there was the need for consultation with the communities involved "to resolve all confrontations in a project of this magnitude".

Bio had earlier told the state commissioners that the contract for the dredging work had already been awarded and contractors mobilised, adding that it would come with some other component like the construction of river ports in Baro, Lokoja, Idah, the rehabilitation of the river port at Onitsha and the construction of river training works and the construction of Gulu-Baro road to provide access to Abuja.

"The benefit derivable from the project when completed cannot be quantified and this should be part of the attraction why your state governments should assist the Federal Government in ensuring that the project is not unnecessarily hindered in any form or manner by either restive youths or the so called militants"

The transport minister said a distance of 572 kilometres would be dredged along the river, adding that it would be followed by a constant maintenance dredging.

Bio, who enumerated the advantages of the project, said: "The dredging is expected to improve navigation as the exercise will create an aquatic highway, which would attract more activities in terms of conveyance of goods and persons through the waterways. The project will lead to increased carrying capacity of goods as the carrying capacity of barges and tanker barges are much more than those of trailers and other road based vehicles.

The capacity of most barges is 1,000 tonnes upwards, which consists of more than 33 trailers of 30 tonnes each. When the River Niger is dredged, it will improve economic activities in the adjoining communities as it will bring increased shipping activities along the dredged channels. Commerce would be enhanced and employment will be generated especially along the port areas. It is obvious that this project when completed will ensure cheaper and safer means of transportation. A 1,000 tonnes barge carrying goods from Port-Harcourt to Onitsha is expected to consume less than half the quantity of fuel as would a trailer carrying only 30 tonnes of goods for the same distance. When the cost is distributed among units of goods, it must be noted that the prices will definitely come down. It should be noted that carrying these goods in a dredged channel is also safer since probability of accident is negligible, "

The government awarded the dredging contract of the river to six contractors in five slots last month. They are Fungtai Nigeria Limited, which was awarded the first slot, slot two went to Dredging International while lots three and four were awarded to Van Oord. The company that dredged the Calabar channel two years ago, while the last of the slots went to Williams Lloyds Nigeria Limited.

All the dredging companies are to be paid over N35 billion for the job while the consultants that would supervise their job on behalf of the Government would be paid about N1.2 billion for their consultancy services. The consultants are AIMS Consultant Nigeria Limited, Royal Haskony, Dredging and Marine International, Enplang Group and Jayuta International Limited.

The dredging contract was first awarded by the Chief Obasanjo's administration in 2007 but the contractors were unable to move to site due to fund paucity.

The project initial hitches included the litigation against it by the people of Niger Delta as the Ijaw National Congress took the Federal Government to the Federal High Court in Benin to seek an injunction to prevent its commencement unless the EIA of the affected area was undertaken. The government complied and the EIA was produced.

Before and shortly after independence, inland waterways transportation was a major mode of movement of passengers and goods in Nigeria. Companies such as UTC, CFAO and UAC transported a lot of imported goods from the ports to the hinterland and also moved all agricultural goods from the hinterland to the southern parts of the country through the River Niger. During the Nigerian civil war, the River Niger was intensively used for the movement of arms. These advantages of water transportation have since been eroded with the advent of road network in the country.

Just wondering why Anambra, the most important state (and main beneficiary) on the course of the R. Niger is missing in the above news?

Beki Apera is the president of Bayelsa Youth Federation. He said: "We once opposed the dredging, but I will now go home to convince our youths because we have been properly briefed and informed about the dredging. We will tell them not to kidnap while the dredging last because it is of benefit to us".

Just wondering why Anambra, the most important state (and main beneficiary) on the course of the R. Niger is missing in the above news?

Sounds like the port will not be cited in Onitsha as we all thought

For me wherever the port will be cited, I still believe its a welcome development as Nigeria needs more ports

The questionable participant is Imo

Biina,

I suppose that River Niger crosses through Imo, albeit its tributary (around Oguta). The inclusion of Imo is right

Sounds like the port will not be cited in Onitsha as we all thought

For me wherever the port will be cited, I still believe its a welcome development as Nigeria needs more ports

Your observation is addressed in the ensuing paragraph

''Bio had earlier told the state commissioners that the contract for the dredging work had already been awarded and contractors mobilised, adding that it would come with some other component like the construction of river ports in Baro, Lokoja, Idah, the rehabilitation of the river port at Onitsha and the construction of river training works and the construction of Gulu-Baro road to provide access to Abuja.

"The benefit derivable from the project when completed cannot be quantified and this should be part of the attraction why your state governments should assist the Federal Government in ensuring that the project is not unnecessarily hindered in any form or manner by either restive youths or the so called militants"

The transport minister said a distance of 572 kilometres would be dredged along the river, adding that it would be followed by a constant maintenance dredging.

Bio, who enumerated the advantages of the project, said: "The dredging is expected to improve navigation as the exercise will create an aquatic highway, which would attract more activities in terms of conveyance of goods and persons through the waterways. The project will lead to increased carrying capacity of goods as the carrying capacity of barges and tanker barges are much more than those of trailers and other road based vehicles.

The capacity of most barges is 1,000 tonnes upwards, which consists of more than 33 trailers of 30 tonnes each. When the River Niger is dredged, it will improve economic activities in the adjoining communities as it will bring increased shipping activities along the dredged channels. Commerce would be enhanced and employment will be generated especially along the port areas. It is obvious that this project when completed will ensure cheaper and safer means of transportation. A 1,000 tonnes barge carrying goods from Port-Harcourt to Onitsha is expected to consume less than half the quantity of fuel as would a trailer carrying only 30 tonnes of goods for the same distance. When the cost is distributed among units of goods, it must be noted that the prices will definitely come down. It should be noted that carrying these goods in a dredged channel is also safer since probability of accident is negligible, "

1)Why aren't the existing ports in warri,ph and calabar being utilised?

2)wont these new ones suffer thesame fate?

Afaukwu:

Biina,

I suppose that River Niger crosses through Imo, albeit its tributary (around Oguta). The inclusion of Imo is right

Will they be dredging that segment as well? I thought it was going to be limited to the main channel.

A side thought is that I hope there are plans to beef up military presence along the river in the future.

@Afaukwu
Thanks for the latest news update. Now that the environmental impact assessment has been done and evaluated, I hope all those opposed to this project under the pretense of adverse EIA will either drop their opposition or simply say they hate the possibility of improving the lots of Igbo traders in Onitsha, and Aba.
No need to change the subject by questioning the utilization of Warri, PH, and Calabar ports.

If the project is safe and would improve the lives of everyone around it, then I think it should go ahead. Although I pointed out some risks earlier but I am no expert and since it's been okayed. . . Then Yar'adua, release the money NOW!!!!

I go be the first to ship car pass am if dem finish am. That's if any ship from Newark go reach there. What I want people to note is this: Assuming no environmental hazard will result from this project, it's been built with Nigerians' money but all of a sudden, it'll be privatized as soon as it's done and clearing price hike follows. Another seaport in Nigeria will mean less congestion in Lagos. Hopefully, many other social benefits will come with this port. Lagos-Kano rail na joke. Lagos Onitcha/Aba rail go help many biz way more than Lagos-Kano. mess light rail, repair the road first.

9jaganja:

I go be the first to ship car pass am if dem finish am. That's if any ship from Newark go reach there. What I want people to note is this: Assuming no environmental hazard will result from this project, it's been built with Nigerians' money but all of a sudden, it'll be privatized as soon as it's done and clearing price hike follows. Another seaport in Nigeria will mean less congestion in Lagos. Hopefully, many other social benefits will come with this port. Lagos-Kano rail na joke. Lagos Onitcha/Aba rail go help many biz way more than Lagos-Kano. mess light rail, repair the road first.

and why is this? you prefer the same areas to be repeatedly focused on? Your argument will only lead to an avalanche effect.
The rail would help to interconnect all the cities along the path and not only Lagos and Kano. It will help reduce the number of trailers on the road, moving farm produce from the Northern states to the south, and processed consumer products in the opposite direction.

biina:

and why is this? you prefer the same areas to be repeatedly focused on? Your argument will only lead to an avalanche effect.
The rail would help to interconnect all the cities along the path and not only Lagos and Kano. It will help reduce the number of trailers on the road, moving farm produce from the Northern states to the south, and processed consumer products in the opposite direction.

I stand corrected. The Lagos-Kano light rail is a joke. Let them pick another destination. By the way, the middle belt is the food basket of the nation not Kano or the North.

9jaganja:

I stand corrected. The Lagos-Kano light rail is a joke. Let them pick another destination. By the way, the middle belt is the food basket of the nation not Kano or the North.

So the train will only stop in Lagos and Kano? It would not pass through the same middle belt regions? BTW do the cattle also come from the middle belt too?
Its thinking like this that bar the nation from moving forward. You fail to see anything positive in a project the moment you cannot relate it to a direct benefit for your own ethnicity.
If you were from Kano, you would likely be singing a different tune.

biina:

So the train will only stop in Lagos and Kano? It would not pass through the same middle belt regions? BTW do the cattle also come from the middle belt too?
Its thinking like this that bar the nation from moving forward. You fail to see anything positive in a project the moment you cannot relate it to a direct benefit for your own ethnicity.
If you were from Kano, you would likely be singing a different tune.

9jaganja is from lagos state.