Afenifere faction demands Tinubu’s impeachment over coastal highway contract

A faction of the pan-Yoruba socio-political group, Afenifere, has urged the National Assembly to initiate impeachment proceedings against President Bola Tinubu, alleging a conflict of interest in the Lagos-Calabar Coastal Highway contract.

The group’s leader, Oba Oladipo Olaitan, raised concerns during an interview with the Saturday Punch, referencing President Tinubu’s recent remarks at the commissioning of the project’s Phase 1, Section 1 — a 30-kilometre stretch.

Tinubu had commended the contractor, Hitech Construction Company, led by Gilbert Chagoury, referring to him as “my partner in daring,” and praised the work as a symbol of “courage and commitment.”

Oba Olaitan interpreted this statement as an admission of a personal stake, accusing the president of awarding a federal project to a close associate without competitive bidding.

He argued that the road seemed designed primarily to benefit the Chagoury Group’s private Eko Atlantic City project, raising serious ethical and legal questions.

“All President Tinubu is doing is building a road to his own Atlantic City,” Olaitan claimed. “He openly said the contractor is his partner. That road was not advertised for public bidding. It’s a national disgrace.”

Olaitan also questioned why only a small portion of the highway was commissioned, suggesting the government’s interest might not extend beyond the segment leading to Eko Atlantic. “If that part is done, they may abandon the rest. This is a clear conflict of interest,” he said, urging lawmakers to prove their independence by launching impeachment proceedings.

In response, the Lagos State chapter of the All Progressives Congress (APC) dismissed the call as baseless.

Party spokesperson Seye Oladejo told Punch on Friday that the Afenifere faction had misinterpreted Tinubu’s words.

Oladejo argued that the president’s reference to Chagoury as a “partner in daring” was symbolic and not an indication of a business relationship. He also affirmed that due process was followed in awarding the contract, and any concerns should be directed through proper legal channels.