Lawyer and human rights advocate, Inibehe Effiong, has criticised the growing trend of naming public infrastructure after President Bola Tinubu, describing it as “unbridled sycophancy” and warning that it reflects the personalisation of governance rather than service to the public.

Speaking during an interview on ARISE News, Effiong stated that while the executive may have discretion to rename projects without statutory names, the current pattern of naming multiple public facilities after the President is misguided and contrary to the public interest.

“It’s unbridled sycophancy. Is there a competition between appointees of the President and federal institutions over who is going to praise the President the most?”

Effiong explained that there are two categories of public institutions and infrastructure in law. According to him, projects or institutions whose names are established by Acts of Parliament cannot be renamed through executive action, while those without statutory names may be renamed by the executive.

“There are public infrastructures or institutions whose names are statutory. Where Parliament has assigned a name through legislation, you cannot rename such institutions through executive fiat. But where there is no statutory backing, the executive has the discretion to ascribe a name.”

Despite acknowledging that such discretion exists, Effiong questioned the rationale behind renaming taxpayer-funded infrastructure after a sitting President.

“These projects are funded with taxpayers’ money. They go through the appropriation process and belong to the Nigerian people. It is only commonsensical that their names should reflect the public interest rather than the personality of a serving President.”

He described the renaming of the Lagos-Calabar Coastal Highway after President Tinubu as an example of governance being personalised.

“That road was originally named the Lagos-Calabar Coastal Road because it connects Lagos and Calabar. If you now rename it after the President, there has to be a convincing public justification.”

Effiong further stated that the pattern extends beyond roads, citing the renaming of facilities within the National Assembly, immigration service and other government institutions after the President.

“If you are a President who believes you have truly served the Nigerian people, you should allow history to judge you rather than seeking to entrench your name on public infrastructure.”

On whether such renaming decisions can be challenged in court, the lawyer said legal action would depend on whether the original name enjoys statutory protection.

“If the name is contained in an Act of Parliament or specifically identified in an appropriation law, it cannot simply be changed through executive action. But where there is no statutory backing, the issue becomes one of public interest, logic and priorities rather than legality.”

Effiong maintained that ministers carrying out the renaming are effectively acting on delegated presidential authority, making the President ultimately responsible for the decisions.

“The Minister of Works is exercising powers delegated by the President. So, in reality, it is the President renaming these public infrastructures after himself.”

Addressing concerns over land acquisition for the Lagos-Calabar Coastal Highway, Effiong emphasized that renaming the project does not remove the government’s constitutional obligation to compensate affected property owners.

“The Constitution and the Land Use Act are clear. Government can only acquire land for public purposes, and it must pay adequate compensation to those with legitimate interests in the affected properties.”

He also questioned the timing and necessity of the multi-trillion-naira highway project amid Nigeria’s economic challenges.

“At a time when the country is struggling with economic hardship, rising debt and fiscal pressures, the government should be prioritising transparency and accountability in major infrastructure projects rather than symbolic gestures.”

Effiong concluded that the growing trend of naming public assets after the President risks undermining democratic governance.

“What we are seeing is the personalisation of governance. Public institutions should serve the people, not become monuments to a serving political leader.” (AriseNews TV)

Update news