OPEN LETTER TO HIS EXCELLENCY, DR. LUCKY ORIMISAN AIYEDATIWA
Governor, Ondo State
THE AIYEDATIWA 2.38 KM FLYOVER: A MISTAKE AKURE CANNOT AFFORD
Your Excellency,
The Ondo State Government’s recent announcement of a 2.38km flyover from Adegbola Junction to St. Mathias, Alagbaka, is being sold as “the cure” for traffic chaos in the heart of Akure. With respect, it is not a cure. It is a mis-diagnosis, and prescribing surgery for a disease that requires discipline.
By every standard, Akure deserves modernity. It deserves smooth traffic, dignity for commuters, and infrastructure befitting a State capital. No one disputes the government’s right, even duty, to develop the capital. But development without diagnosis is vanity. And this flyover is vanity masquerading as vision. It has the capacity to turn to our own “Strait of Homus” a choke point of monumental proportion if you persists.
1. The problem is not asphalt. It is indiscipline.
Sir, traffic in the Cathedral/ Oja-Oba/A-Division corridor is not caused by “lack of road”. The road exists. What is missing is enforcement.
Under Mrs. Yetunde Adeyanju as Commissioner during Mimiko’s administration, that axis flowed. Under Governor Akeredolu, (you ran the government together), gridlock was tamed not by concrete, but by political will, that is, barricades to stop indiscriminate pedestrian crossing, activation of the pedestrian bridges built by Agagu/Mimiko, and a special taskforce led by Dr. Doyin Odebowale’s team that kept traders off the carriageway. Akure people mockingly called it “Odi Jericho”. But it worked. Traffic moved. Business thrived. Order returned.
When your administration removed those barricades for “public applause”, the chaos returned tenfold. Your abandoned “Odi China” iron barricade now stands as a monument to policy inconsistency.
Mr Governor sir, flyovers do not cure human behavior. If the State cannot enforce existing laws against roadside trading and jaywalking, a flyover will simply become a bridge over a market. It is that simple.
2. Flyovers are engineering solutions, not beautification projects.
Globally, flyovers are built where natural bottlenecks, intersections, or topography create physical constraints. The gridlock notices at Oja Oba, Arakale and Alagbaka axis is not constrained by terrain. It is constrained by people. The gridlock is man-made; traders on the road, okada/motorcycles weaving, commuters boarding anywhere, and zero enforcement.
Build a flyover here and you will not solve congestion. You will relocate it, while killing the informal economy that sustains thousands. What would you do to Arakale’s and Nepa current chokehold when you start your flyover? Look at Apongbon, Lagos, the flyover did not end gridlock. It ended access. Businesses beneath and beside it withered because footfall died. A flyover at the commercial heart of Akure will divide the city, reduce access to shops, and strangle the very “commercial centre” status the government claims to protect.
3. The execution risk makes it a white elephant in waiting.
Respectfully sir, even if the engineering argument were sound, the project fails the test of capacity and credibility.
- Duration: A 2.38km urban flyover, with underpasses, utilities diversion, and traffic management, takes 3-5 years minimum even with Julius Berger. The contractor announced is a “backwater company” already blacklisted by the Federal Government for non-performance. That is not confidence inspiring sir
- Track record: The Onyaregbulem flyover was 55% complete in 2023 with no issue of fund with the contractor. It was rushed to commissioning in 2026 for optics, not completion. Oda Road barely finished. Ijoka Road completion date is “unknown” per the Commissioner. Akungba-Ikare Road and Judiciary Village are technically abandoned. A government that cannot complete inherited projects in 3 years should not start a more complex 5-year project with 3 years left in its term.
- Accountability gaps: Where is the cost? Where is the engineering design? Where is the EIA? Where is the funding source and, if it’s a loan, the tenure and interest? Under Akeredolu, no contractor got mobilization without ISPO. Work had to start before money flowed. That discipline produced quality. Stopping jobs on change of government, as happened post 2023, breeds delay and shoddy work. Ijoka and Oda Roads today show it.
4. What Akure actually needs: Value, not optics.
Mr Governor sir, intentionally, I do this as a stakeholder to project Ondo and as a concerned citizen. If the goal is a modern capital, spend money where it adds value:
- Enforce and Rehabilitate: Restore the taskforce model that worked. Re-erect barricades. Sanction roadside trading. Pay a suprise visit by 4 pm without siren on week days or weekends to Stadium junction up to Toyin Bookshops area and see the truth. Simultaneously, rehabilitate internal roads behind Adegbemile, behind Adegbola to St. Mathias, and across Akure metropolis as Mimiko and Akeredolu did in Ondo and Owo. When internal roads are motorable, commuters avoid the main artery. That reduces pressure without killing commerce.
- Strategic, not sentimental, flyovers: If flyovers are truly needed, site them where traffic engineering demands: Roadblock/Chicken Republic/Orita Obele/FUTA Southgate junction; Federal Girls/Total to Agbogbo corridor; Fiwasaye/Oba Ile/Iyeoma corridor; Nepa/Arakale/Hospital Road junction/ ShopRite junction. These are intersection chokepoints, not market centres.
- Prioritize security and health: Section 14(2)(b) of the Constitution makes security and welfare the primary purpose of government. Kidnappings have increased because the Amotekun template of Akeredolu was abandoned. Make Amotekun pensionable, raise pay to N350,000/month, equip them with modern tools, and enforce the anti-open grazing law. Hospitals across Ondo lack equipment. A functioning hospital saves more lives than a flyover saves minutes.
Conclusion
Sir, governance is not about “clout” or ribbon-cutting. It is about solving real problems with real capacity. A 2.38km flyover through Akure’s commercial heart is ill-thought, poorly timed, insensitive, wrong choice and potentially unachievable. With the contractor’s history and the administration’s project delivery record, it risks becoming an 8-year, abandoned white elephant that outlives this government.
Mr. Governor, Akure does not need a bridge over chaos. Akure needs order on the road. Enforce the law. Fix internal roads. Fund Amotekun. Equip hospitals. That is development. That is legacy.
A flyover built on indiscipline will only elevate the chaos.
Oloroogun Sola Ajisafe (Fundamental Ajiology) Friday 5th June, 2026. Akure, Ondo State
THE FLYOVER DEBATE: WHY GOVERNANCE IS NOT A CHOICE BETWEEN ENFORCEMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE
I do not work for the Ondo State Government, but as a citizen, I would like to comment on the arguments posited in this open letter.
The criticism of the proposed 2.38km Akure flyover rests on a fundamental assumption: that traffic congestion in Akure is caused primarily by human indiscipline and therefore can be solved through enforcement rather than infrastructure.
At first glance, this sounds persuasive. However, transport planning evidence from around the world demonstrates that urban congestion is rarely caused by a single factor and is almost never solved by a single intervention.
The first weakness in the argument is the false dichotomy it creates between enforcement and infrastructure. Effective cities do not choose one or the other. They deploy both.
The fact that traffic improved during previous administrations through stricter enforcement does not automatically mean infrastructure investments are unnecessary. By the same logic, the existence of hospitals would be unnecessary because preventive healthcare exists. Good governance recognizes that behavioral measures and physical infrastructure are complementary, not mutually exclusive.
The OECD notes that congestion management requires integrated strategies involving infrastructure, traffic management, enforcement, land-use planning, and mobility policies because there is “no single perfect solution” to urban congestion. Urban mobility challenges are complex and require multiple interventions working together. (proceedings-paris2007.piarc.org)
Second, the article assumes that because traffic indiscipline contributes to congestion, physical infrastructure cannot also be part of the solution. This is logically unsound.
A city can simultaneously suffer from:
• Inadequate road capacity
• Poor traffic management
• Weak law enforcement
• Informal roadside commercial activity
• Poor urban planning
The existence of one cause does not eliminate the others.
Indeed, the World Bank has repeatedly emphasized that growing cities require investments in urban mobility infrastructure alongside traffic management reforms. Cities that fail to expand transportation capacity as population, commercial activity, and vehicle ownership increase often experience worsening congestion and reduced productivity. (World Bank Blogs)
Third, the article presents previous enforcement successes as proof that infrastructure is unnecessary. This confuses temporary relief with long-term capacity planning.
Many cities experience periods of improved traffic flow after enforcement campaigns. Yet governments still invest in bridges, interchanges, bypasses, rail systems, and flyovers because urban growth eventually overwhelms operational measures alone.
A government’s responsibility is not merely to solve today’s traffic problem. It must anticipate tomorrow’s traffic demand.
Population growth, rising vehicle ownership, expanding commercial activity, and urbanization all place increasing pressure on transportation networks. Infrastructure planning therefore looks years ahead rather than reacting only to current conditions. (World Bank Blogs)
Fourth, critics argue that flyovers do not always eliminate congestion. This is true.
However, that observation does not prove a flyover is a mistake.
No public policy is perfect. Roads do not eliminate accidents. Hospitals do not eliminate disease. Schools do not eliminate illiteracy. Security agencies do not eliminate crime.
The proper question is not whether a flyover completely eliminates congestion.
The proper question is whether it improves mobility relative to the status quo.
Public policy is evaluated against realistic alternatives, not perfection.
Fifth, the article criticizes the project based on execution risks, contractor concerns, and transparency questions. These are legitimate issues deserving public scrutiny.
However, execution risk is not evidence that the underlying project concept is wrong.
A poorly managed hospital project does not prove hospitals are unnecessary.
A delayed road project does not prove roads should not be built.
Arguments about contractor competence, project financing, procurement transparency, and project management should be debated separately from the strategic question of whether additional transportation infrastructure is needed.
Finally, governance requires balancing present needs with future development.
The same citizens who today oppose major infrastructure projects often expect governments to deliver modern cities capable of attracting investment, supporting commerce, and accommodating future growth.
Akure cannot simultaneously aspire to become a major regional capital while rejecting every large-scale transportation investment because it carries risk.
The more balanced position is this:
Enforce traffic laws.
Control roadside trading.
Improve internal roads.
Strengthen urban planning.
And where engineering studies justify it, build strategic transportation infrastructure.
These approaches are not competitors. They are partners.
The debate should therefore not be framed as “flyover versus enforcement.”
The real question is whether Ondo State has conducted the necessary technical, economic, environmental, and traffic studies to justify this particular flyover.
If those studies support the project, then the existence of traffic indiscipline is not an argument against infrastructure.
It is an argument for better governance alongside infrastructure.
No administration possesses perfect foresight. Every government makes decisions based on the information available at the time. Some projects succeed spectacularly, some underperform, and some fail. That reality does not invalidate the responsibility of government to plan, invest, and build.
Progress is rarely achieved by waiting for perfect certainty. It is achieved by making informed decisions, managing risks, correcting mistakes when necessary, and continuously improving the city.
That is how modern societies are built.
THE AKURE FLYOVER DEBATE: WHY REASONABLE PEOPLE CAN DISAGREE
This criticism of the proposed 2.38km flyover from Adegbola Junction to St. Mathias, Alagbaka raises important concerns about urban planning, public expenditure, project execution, and governance priorities. Those concerns deserve to be heard.
However, it is one thing to question a project. It is quite another to conclude that the project is inherently misguided, irrational, or destined to fail.
The central weakness in the argument against the flyover is that it presents a false choice between enforcement and infrastructure, while assuming that because previous traffic management measures improved traffic flow, additional infrastructure can no longer be justified.
That conclusion does not necessarily follow.
The Real Question Is Not Whether Enforcement Works
Almost everyone agrees that enforcement matters.
Roadside trading, indiscriminate parking, unsafe pedestrian crossings, unregulated commercial activity, and weak traffic discipline contribute significantly to congestion in Akure. Stronger enforcement could certainly improve traffic conditions.
But acknowledging that enforcement helps does not automatically prove that infrastructure is unnecessary.
Cities are complex systems. Congestion is rarely caused by a single factor and is almost never solved by a single intervention.
Urban planners generally recognize that traffic conditions are influenced by multiple variables, including road capacity, intersection design, traffic management, land-use patterns, commercial concentration, population growth, vehicle ownership, and human behaviour. Effective cities therefore combine enforcement with infrastructure rather than treating them as competing alternatives.
The proposition that Akure needs stricter enforcement is entirely reasonable.
The proposition that Akure may also need additional transport infrastructure is equally reasonable.
Both can be true simultaneously.
What Worked Yesterday May Not Be Enough Tomorrow
One of the strongest points raised by critics is that previous administrations achieved noticeable improvements through enforcement measures.
That observation deserves recognition.
However, public policy cannot be based solely on what worked ten years ago.
Akure today is not the Akure of a decade ago.
The city has experienced population growth, increased vehicle ownership, expanding commercial activity, and greater urbanisation. Traffic volumes that were manageable years ago may no longer be manageable under present or future conditions.
The responsibility of government is not merely to manage current traffic flows. It is also to anticipate future demand.
Infrastructure planning is inherently forward-looking.
A road, bridge, interchange, or flyover is not built only for today’s traffic. It is built for the city that exists ten, twenty, or thirty years from now.
The fact that enforcement worked in the past therefore does not automatically prove that infrastructure expansion is unnecessary in the future.
The Criticism Raises Questions, Not Conclusions
Critics ask important questions:
* Where is the traffic study?
* Where is the environmental impact assessment?
* What is the cost?
* What is the funding model?
* What alternatives were considered?
* Why was this alignment selected?
These are legitimate questions.
Citizens have every right to demand answers before a major public investment proceeds.
But the absence of publicly available answers at this stage does not automatically prove that the project itself is unsound.
There is an important distinction between saying:
“Government has not yet sufficiently justified this project.”
and
“This project is a mistake.”
The first is a request for evidence.
The second is a conclusion.
The available facts may support the first position. They do not necessarily support the second.
Opportunity Cost Is Real, But So Is Economic Infrastructure
Another criticism is that resources should instead be directed toward hospitals, security, internal roads, education, or social services.
This is a valid concern because public resources are finite.
However, this argument assumes that transportation infrastructure creates less public value than other categories of expenditure.
That assumption is not self-evident.
Efficient transportation networks influence productivity, commerce, emergency response, logistics, investment attractiveness, property values, and overall economic activity.
A modern hospital matters.
A secure community matters.
Good schools matter.
But transportation infrastructure matters too.
The existence of competing priorities does not automatically invalidate a transportation investment.
Every government must balance multiple needs simultaneously.
Reasonable people may disagree on where that balance should lie, but disagreement alone is not proof that the chosen priority is wrong.
The Flyover May Be Wrong. But It May Also Be Right.
This is perhaps the most important point.
The debate should not be framed as though only one side is capable of rational thought.
The critics may ultimately be proven correct.
The traffic studies, if released, may show that alternative interventions would produce greater value.
The economic analysis may reveal that the project is not cost-effective.
The engineering design may expose flaws.
Those possibilities exist.
But the opposite possibility also exists.
Professional traffic modelling may indicate that the corridor is approaching future capacity limits.
Engineering studies may demonstrate that grade separation will significantly improve mobility.
Economic analysis may show long-term benefits that exceed project costs.
Urban planners may conclude that the corridor represents a strategic investment in the future growth of Akure.
Until those facts are known, it is premature to declare the project a mistake.
Governance Requires Judgment Under Uncertainty
No government operates with perfect information.
Every administration makes decisions based on forecasts, projections, engineering advice, budget realities, and policy judgments.
Some decisions succeed.
Some underperform.
Some fail.
That is the nature of governance.
The relevant test is therefore not whether a project is guaranteed to succeed.
No major public project carries such a guarantee.
The relevant test is whether the decision was made rationally, based on available evidence, reasonable assumptions, and a coherent vision for the future.
Reasonable citizens can support the flyover.
Reasonable citizens can oppose it.
Both positions are legitimate.
What is not yet established is the claim that the project is inherently irrational, fundamentally misguided, or a mistake Akure cannot afford.
That conclusion requires evidence that has not yet been presented.
Until then, the debate should remain where it belongs: not between development and anti-development, but between competing visions of how best to prepare Akure for its future.
Sola Adebawo is an energy executive, institutional strategy, and public affairs leader with deep experience at the intersection of energy, governance, policy, and strategic communication. He currently leads Hyphen Partners Limited, a specialist advisory firm supporting organisations navigating complex, policy-sensitive environments. His writing explores reform, political economy, leadership, culture, and the relationship between institutions and public life. He is an author, scholar, and ordained minister.