By| Goodluck E.Adubazi | Abuja
The African Democratic Congress (ADC) has strongly criticized a £746 million port rehabilitation agreement signed by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu during his recent state visit to the United Kingdom, describing it as a “mugu deal” that disproportionately benefits the UK while placing Nigeria under significant financial burden.
In a statement issued by its National Publicity Secretary, Bolaji Abdullahi, the opposition party alleged that the deal favors British economic interests, arguing that it enables the UK to support its domestic industries while Nigeria assumes the debt.
According to the ADC, the agreement—presented by the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) as a diplomatic success—is in reality a commercial loan arrangement with conditions that ensure much of the funding is spent on UK goods and services.
The party cited information from UK government sources indicating that the financing would be delivered through the UK Export Finance (UKEF) Buyer Credit Facility, arranged by Citibank’s London branch. Under this structure, loans obtained by Nigeria would be used primarily to procure goods and services from British companies, with payments made directly to those firms.
The ADC further claimed that at least £236 million of the contract value would go to UK suppliers, while a significant portion includes a £70 million steel supply deal for British Steel, described as one of its largest export orders under the UKEF scheme.
Raising concerns over transparency, the party called on the Federal Government to disclose full details of the agreement, including interest rates, repayment terms, and provisions for local content and job creation.
The statement also questioned the broader economic impact of the deal, asking how many jobs would be created for Nigerians, what level of local participation is guaranteed, and whether there are clear timelines, training opportunities, and limits on expatriate involvement.
The ADC warned that without clarity, Nigerians may view the agreement as one that risks indebting the country for limited benefits, drawing comparisons to unequal arrangements of the colonial era.