Israel Umoh
The naming of public infrastructure and development projects is more than a matter of official nomenclature. It is a question of identity, history, ownership and collective memory.
Across the world, projects are often named after the communities and localities that host them, thereby creating a lasting connection between the infrastructure and the people whose land, resources and environment sustain it.
In Akwa Ibom State, however, the issue has generated considerable debate. While governments have the prerogative to determine the names of public projects, the practice of overlooking host communities in favour of political figures, institutions or broader branding considerations raises important questions about historical recognition and geographical identity.
The siting of a project is usually influenced by a variety of factors. It may be proximity to raw materials, strategic location, economic viability, environmental considerations or the availability of land. Sometimes, political influence and stakeholder interests also play a role. Yet, beyond the decision of where a project is located lies another equally significant decision: what the project should be called.
Also read: Peering into a New Nigeria
The name assigned to a project often outlives the administration that conceived it. It becomes part of the historical record and serves as a permanent marker of place and identity. It is, therefore, not surprising that the naming of major public assets frequently provokes passionate debate among stakeholders.
Historically, Akwa Ibom and the defunct Cross River State offered notable examples of projects whose names reflected their host communities. During the administration of the late Dr. Clement Isong, industries established across the state were closely identified with their localities.
Qua Steel Products Limited became synonymous with Eket; Peacock Paints Limited with Ikot Ekan; Sunshine Batteries Limited and International Biscuits Limited with Ikot Ekpene; Quality Ceramics Limited with Ikot Ebom Itam; Asbestonit Industries Limited with Oron; Plasto-Crown Industries with Uyo; and Pamil Industries Limited with Abak.
These names did more than identify factories. They promoted the communities in which the industries were located, strengthened local pride and ensured that the host areas remained permanently connected to the economic history of the state.
However, in recent years, a different trend has emerged. Major public projects have increasingly been named after prominent personalities, state symbols or broad institutional identities rather than their geographical locations. The Victor Attah International Airport, the Ibom Deep Sea Port and the Le Meridien Hotels and Golf Resort are notable examples.
There is nothing wrong with honouring distinguished individuals or adopting a state-wide identity. Obong Victor Attah’s role in initiating the airport project is well documented and deserving of recognition. Likewise, the use of “Ibom” (the cradle earth) reflects an attempt to create a unified state brand, as seen in Ibom Air and other state-owned enterprises. Nevertheless, these naming conventions often obscure the identity of the host communities that provide the land and bear the direct social and environmental consequences of such developments.
The controversy surrounding the Ibom Deep Sea Port illustrates the sensitivity of the issue. Originally conceived and widely known as the Ibaka Deep Seaport, the project became the subject of intense debate following its rebranding as the Ibom Deep Sea Port. Leaders of the Oron Nation viewed the change as an erosion of the historical and geographical identity associated with Ibaka.
On the other hand, government officials defended the new name as part of a broader state-branding strategy. The dispute soon transcended nomenclature. Questions arose regarding location, ownership, community recognition and stakeholder participation. Host communities in Ibeno also argued that if the port was ultimately to be located within their territory, its name should reflect that reality. What began as a naming issue evolved into a broader contest over identity and inclusion.
Indeed, reports suggest that the prolonged controversies surrounding the project contributed to uncertainty among investors and stakeholders. Whether or not the name change alone delayed the project’s take-off, it undoubtedly became a symbol of wider concerns about recognition and ownership.
Across Nigeria, there is a long-established tradition of naming major projects after their host communities. The Lekki Deep Sea Port derives its name from Lekki. The Apapa Wharf is identified with Apapa. The Bonny-Bodo Road takes its name from the communities it connects. The Onne Fertilizer Plant, Kaduna Refinery, Eleme Petrochemical Complex, Warri Refinery, Ajaokuta Steel Complex, Zungeru Hydroelectric Power Station, Mambilla Hydroelectric Project and Onitsha River Port all reflect their geographical locations.
Such names perform an important public function. They provide immediate geographical clarity, facilitate historical documentation and preserve the identity of host communities for future generations. More importantly, they foster a sense of belonging among local populations and acknowledge their contributions to development.
Those who advocate naming projects after host communities argue that it is not merely a symbolic gesture. It is an act of recognition. It acknowledges the communities that surrender land, accommodate construction activities and often bear the environmental and social consequences associated with large-scale infrastructure. It also reduces the political controversies that frequently accompany the naming or renaming of projects after public figures.
As Akwa Ibom continues its quest for industrialisation and economic growth, policymakers may need to revisit the question of nomenclature. The issue is not whether distinguished personalities should be honoured. They should. Rather, it is whether the geographical identity of host communities should be sacrificed in the process.
Development projects are ultimately rooted in places and people. Naming them after their host communities preserves history, strengthens local ownership and provides a sense of permanence that transcends political administrations.
In fact, communities that host development deserve not only the benefits that flow from it, but also the honour of having their names permanently engraved on it.
