News Rendezvous

By Dr Umar Dauda Duhu, LLM, PhD

Public affairs analyst and legal scholar, Dr Umar Dauda Duhu, has challenged the Executive Director of the Centre for Democratic Development Research and Training (CEDDERT), Professor Abubakar Siddique Mohammed, over his criticism of Adamawa State’s investment in flyovers, insisting that the projects are legitimate development investments capable of stimulating economic growth, protecting lives and improving citizens’ livelihoods.

Duhu, in a strongly worded rejoinder to Mohammed’s intervention on Channels Television’s Sunrise Daily on Monday, October 12, argued that portraying expenditure on flyovers as a diversion from human capital development reflects a narrow understanding of development and overlooks the economic and social benefits of public infrastructure.

He maintained that physical infrastructure and human capital development are not mutually exclusive, stressing that roads, bridges and flyovers can improve access to markets, healthcare facilities, educational institutions and other essential services.

According to him, the relevant question in assessing public expenditure should not simply be whether a government is building flyovers or investing in schools and hospitals, but whether its overall spending priorities are delivering measurable improvements in the welfare of citizens.

Duhu, who holds an LLM and a PhD, argued that Adamawa State’s investments in flyovers at Police Roundabout, Total Junction and Mubi Roundabout should be assessed within the context of urban growth, traffic management, public safety and the state’s broader development priorities.

He described the projects as strategic public infrastructure rather than luxury developments, contending that efficient transportation networks can reduce travel delays, facilitate commercial activities and strengthen connections between communities and economic centres.

Infrastructure and Human Capital Are Not Opposites

At the heart of Duhu’s argument is the position that human capital development extends beyond direct government expenditure on education and healthcare.

He argued that the ability of citizens to reach schools, hospitals, workplaces and markets efficiently is itself an important component of development.

According to him, a farmer who spends less time transporting produce to market, a patient who reaches a hospital more quickly, or a student who benefits from improved access to educational facilities may all gain from investments in transportation infrastructure.

Such benefits, he maintained, demonstrate why infrastructure spending should be evaluated not merely by its immediate construction costs but also by its potential contribution to productivity, public safety and economic opportunity.

Duhu invoked Sections 14(2)(b) and 16(2) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, to support his argument that government’s development responsibilities encompass a broad range of public investments directed at citizens’ welfare and economic advancement.

He cautioned against a policy framework that treats physical infrastructure and social-sector spending as competing priorities, arguing instead that effective governance requires a balanced approach that addresses immediate human needs alongside the structural requirements of economic growth.

He maintained, however, that the ultimate justification for any major infrastructure project must be demonstrated through its public value, proper planning and measurable benefits to residents.

FAAC Allocations: Duhu Defends States’ Spending Discretion

The legal scholar also rejected the suggestion that using Federation Account Allocation Committee (FAAC) allocations for flyover construction is inherently an inappropriate deployment of public resources.

He argued that Section 162 of the Constitution provides the framework for the distribution of revenue from the Federation Account, while state governments exercise spending discretion through lawful budgetary and appropriation processes.

According to him, there is no general constitutional prohibition against states using properly appropriated public revenue to finance transportation infrastructure.

Duhu said Adamawa’s projects should therefore be judged by their legality, fiscal prudence, development rationale and benefits to the public rather than by the mere fact that they are being financed with public funds.

He further argued that the more meaningful test of fiscal responsibility is whether government expenditure reflects clearly established public priorities and produces tangible outcomes for citizens.

In his view, criticism of infrastructure spending should be supported by comparative budgetary evidence showing how much a state allocates to roads and other physical projects relative to education, healthcare, social protection and other essential services.

Without such evidence, he argued, singling out a particular state risks reducing a complex question of public finance to a generalised judgement about development priorities.

Duhu Cites Education, Healthcare and Employment Initiatives

To reinforce his position, Duhu pointed to what he described as the Fintiri administration’s investments in education, healthcare, employment and skills development.

He cited the reported provision of free WAEC and NECO examination fees for Adamawa indigenes, the payment of outstanding scholarship obligations, the recruitment of more than 5,000 teachers and health workers, the Adamawa State Health Insurance Scheme and the establishment of skills acquisition centres across the state’s 21 local government areas.

He argued that these initiatives demonstrate that the administration’s development agenda is not restricted to physical infrastructure.

Duhu also referred to the 2026 Adamawa State budget, which he said allocates more than 45 per cent to the social sector, describing the figure as evidence of the government’s commitment to human capital development.

The figures and programme details require independent verification against the approved budget, relevant expenditure records and official implementation reports to establish the extent of actual funding and delivery.

For Duhu, the central point remains that an assessment of Adamawa’s development record should consider the combined effect of infrastructure, education, healthcare, employment and social welfare programmes rather than isolate individual projects from the wider policy framework.

Calls for Evidence-Based Assessment

The public affairs analyst criticised what he considered the selective use of Adamawa as an example of states misapplying public revenue, arguing that a rigorous assessment should compare spending priorities and development outcomes across states.

He challenged Mohammed to demonstrate, with relevant budgetary figures, what proportion of Adamawa’s FAAC receipts had been committed to flyovers and how that expenditure compared with allocations for education, healthcare and other social services.

He argued that such an analysis would provide a stronger basis for determining whether the state’s infrastructure investments had come at the expense of essential human development programmes.

Duhu’s intervention raises a broader public policy question: should infrastructure spending be considered wasteful simply because the same resources could have been invested in schools, hospitals or social programmes?

For development policy to answer that question adequately, analysts must examine the quality of expenditure, the urgency of competing needs, the availability of alternative funding, the economic returns on infrastructure and the measurable outcomes of social-sector investments.

A flyover that reduces dangerous congestion and improves access to commercial centres may deliver substantial public benefits. Equally, a costly infrastructure project that is poorly designed, inadequately utilised or maintained at excessive expense may represent an inefficient use of scarce resources.

The distinction, therefore, lies not in the mere existence of a flyover but in whether the project addresses a demonstrable need, represents value for money and forms part of a coherent development strategy.

Invites CEDDERT Chief to Adamawa

Concluding his rejoinder, Duhu invited Mohammed to visit Adamawa State to assess what he described as the Fintiri administration’s efforts to balance physical infrastructure with investments in human development.

He maintained that the state’s flyover projects should not, in isolation, be interpreted as evidence of misplaced priorities or poor governance.

“Flyovers do not kill human capital—bad governance does,” Duhu declared, arguing that the debate should focus on the quality, purpose and outcomes of public spending rather than a blanket opposition to infrastructure projects.

His intervention has brought renewed attention to the relationship between capital expenditure and human development, particularly as state governments contend with competing demands for transportation infrastructure, education, healthcare, employment and social protection.

Ultimately, the debate presents an important test for both government officials and policy analysts: whether public expenditure can be defended through transparent budgets, verifiable implementation records and demonstrable improvements in citizens’ lives.

For Adamawa, the challenge is not simply to build modern infrastructure or announce social programmes, but to show that both translate into safer roads, stronger public services, greater economic opportunity and an improved quality of life for its people.