The proposal by the Kogi State Government to raise ₦50 billion through Sukuk bonds for an international airport and an international market is not merely questionable policy. It is a profound governance failure dressed up as financial innovation. Worse, it exposes a dangerous attempt to misuse an ethical financing instrument to legitimise fiscal irresponsibility.
Sukuk is not conventional debt. It is not designed as a fiscal escape hatch for governments that have failed to manage existing resources. By its very nature, Sukuk financing is governed by principles of transparency, asset integrity, accountability, and public interest. These principles exist to protect investors, safeguard the public, and ensure that borrowing is tied to real, productive value. When measured against these standards, Kogi State under Governor Usman Ododo fails decisively.
In less than two years, the Ododo administration has received well over ₦600 billion from Federation Account allocations and other revenues. This is not speculation; it is a matter of public record. The relevant question is not how much has been received, but what has been delivered. On this point, the answer is deeply troubling. Two years into this administration, not a single completed project has been commissioned anywhere in the state.
In governance, outcomes matter. Commissioned projects are not ceremonial indulgences; they are the basic evidence that public resources have been converted into public value. Roads, hospitals, schools, water facilities, power infrastructure—these are the tangible indicators of performance. In Kogi State, ₦600 billion has produced none of them.
This reality alone should disqualify the state from accessing Sukuk financing at this time.
Sukuk requires that funds be tied to identifiable, viable assets capable of completion and productive use. It requires that the issuer demonstrate capacity to deliver projects, manage assets, and sustain them over time. An administration that cannot complete one project with ₦600 billion cannot credibly promise to deliver an international airport with ₦50 billion. Ethical finance is not built on hope or rhetoric; it is built on demonstrable competence.
Equally important is the question of accountability. Sukuk standards demand transparency and full disclosure. Before investors are invited to commit funds, there must be clarity on how prior resources were used. In Kogi State, there has been no comprehensive public accounting for the ₦600 billion already received. There has been no reconciliation between revenue inflows and development outcomes. There has been no credible explanation for why massive allocations have yielded no commissionable results.
Without such disclosure, any Sukuk issuance would rest on opacity. That alone violates the foundational principles of Sukuk financing.
The ethical dimension is even more troubling. Sukuk is rooted in the idea that finance should serve the public good and avoid unjust burden. Yet in Kogi State, entire communities remain without electricity after more than a decade. Many citizens lack access to clean water. Roads remain impassable. Hospitals are under-equipped. Civil servants struggle to afford housing. Poverty and hunger are not abstract statistics; they are lived realities.
Against this backdrop, borrowing ₦50 billion for an international airport is not development planning. It is a distortion of priorities. An airport does not feed hungry families. It does not provide electricity to dark communities. It does not supply water where none exists. To pursue such a project while basic needs remain unmet is to fail the public interest test that lies at the heart of ethical finance.
The issue of repayment further exposes the recklessness of the proposal. Sukuk obligations must be serviced regardless of project success. Estimates suggest annual debt service obligations of between ₦7 and ₦10 billion over the tenure of the instrument. That money will be deducted from public resources every year, whether or not the airport generates revenue, whether or not citizens remain without basic services.
This is not risk transfer; it is risk entrenchment. Future administrations and future generations will inherit obligations incurred without demonstrable benefit.
The government argues that the airport will generate revenue sufficient to service the Sukuk. This claim does not withstand scrutiny. Revenue generation from complex infrastructure requires institutional capacity, operational competence, and market demand. An administration that has failed to maintain basic infrastructure or complete simple projects has provided no evidence that it can successfully operate a commercially viable international airport.
Indeed, the state’s recent history suggests the opposite. Past infrastructure initiatives have produced abandonment, decay, or non-performance. There is no credible basis for assuming a different outcome here.
The problem confronting Kogi State is not lack of funds. It is failure of governance. Increased FAAC allocations have already provided the state with resources that should have transformed living conditions. They did not. Borrowing more money will not correct this failure; it will compound it.
Approving a Sukuk under these circumstances would do more than expose investors to risk. It would undermine the integrity of Sukuk as a financial instrument in Nigeria. It would signal that ethical finance can be subordinated to political expediency. It would reward mismanagement with additional leverage.
Regulators, issuing houses, and prospective investors therefore carry a serious responsibility. Sukuk approval is not a rubber stamp. It is a judgment about governance credibility. In this case, that credibility is absent.
Before Kogi State borrows another naira, there must be a full, independent, and publicly available accounting of how ₦600 billion was spent and why it produced no commissionable outcomes. Until that happens, any attempt to access Sukuk financing is indefensible.
The question Governor Ododo must answer is simple and unavoidable. If ₦600 billion in two years could not deliver one completed project, why should anyone believe ₦50 billion more will?
There is no persuasive answer to that question. And until there is, the proposed Sukuk should not proceed. Ethical finance cannot be built on fiscal recklessness, and public trust cannot survive governance without results.
— Yusuf M.A.
For: Kogi Equity Alliance
