By Kalu Okoronkwo
The controversy surrounding the demolition of Paul Onwuanibe’s $200 million Landmark Beach investment in Lagos and the Federal Government’s Lagos-Calabar Coastal Highway project, presents precisely a moment when the decisions of government reveal more about the character of a nation than its most eloquent policy statements. The highway’s passage through the Landmark Beach commercial ecosystem in Victoria Island, Lagos, presents an uncomfortable case study in the consequences of changing public policy and infrastructure design.
In several media interviews, Mr. Onwuanibe said that the Landmark ecosystem comprised more than 40 businesses, attracted approximately 3.5 million tourists annually and accounted for more than 12,000 direct and indirect jobs. He also put the value of the businesses within the Landmark ecosystem at over ₦20 billion, with at least ₦25 billion invested in the underlying infrastructure. Onwuanibe said the beach was acquired in 2006 for $17 million and further developed with a $30 million loan secured abroad, adding that the demolition disrupted services for the beach’s 160,000 members and violated existing contracts.
“Landmark consists of three parts: our business, our leisure, and our lifestyle. What was demolished was our leisure business, a significant part of both our revenue and our physical infrastructure. The initial reaction was shock, and then anger. You go through the five stages of grief, which are shock, anger, bargaining, concern, and finally acceptance” he said.
Recounting the circumstances surrounding the demolition, Onwuanibe described the human and commercial consequences in particularly painful terms: “Many businesses didn’t have time to remove their equipment: TVs, fridges, even furniture. There were guests in the pool when Breeze was being demolished. It was tragic. We had N9.2 billion of members’ money in our accounts. There were over 200 contracts, including supply of water, fumigation, lifeguard services, all of which had to be renegotiated. Sometimes, you wish there was a natural disaster so you could invoke force majeure, but this wasn’t the case” he explained.
Onwuanibe also drew attention to the less visible economic casualties: the people whose livelihoods depended on the resort’s commercial activities. “The guy parking cars on the streets lost his job; the person selling sweets at the gate had no customers; hotels built outside Landmark that thrived on the four and a half million annual visitors were affected”, he explained, noting, “at some stage, you have to accept it and move on. You either lie down and cry or get up and go,”.
What began as a dispute over a highway alignment has evolved into a wider conversation about government credibility, the sanctity of private investment and the economic casualties of decisions that appear to have been made without sufficient regard for existing commercial interests.
This is not an argument against building roads. Nigeria needs roads, bridges, railways, seaports and other critical infrastructure to unlock its economic potential. But infrastructure development must not become an excuse for inadequate planning, institutional insensitivity or the casual destruction of productive investments. A government that seeks to attract investments must demonstrate that it understands the economic value of what private investors have already built.
The demolition of parts of the Landmark Beach Resort began on April 29, 2024, to give right-of-way for the federal government’s 700-kilometer Lagos-Calabar Coastal Highway project. The Federal Ministry of Works, led by Mr. David Umahi, the minister in charge of works, told Nigerians that parts of the Landmark Beach complex and surrounding structures encroached upon the legally established right-of-way of the coastal highway while also accusing the owners of land grabbing.
With several other multi dollar businesses at risk, the Federal Government would later reroute the road through design adjustments. Concerned Nigerians are curious to know why a $200 million tourism investment could not enjoy the engineering flexibility demonstrated in subsequent adjustments to save the investment and thousands of jobs whose livelihood depended on the premium tourism facility.
However, an important distinction must be made in assessing what happened to Landmark. The demolition did not amount to the destruction of the entire resort. Landmark Towers, Landmark Boulevard, Landmark Event Centre and Landmark Hotel were reported to have remained largely unaffected. The principal damage was concentrated on the beachfront and associated facilities, including Island Breeze restaurant and Lagos Beach Club.
This distinction matters because it prevents an exaggeration of the facts. But it also exposes a more fundamental economic question: what is the value of preserving a resort’s buildings if the attraction that gives those buildings much of their commercial relevance is substantially compromised? A hotel does not derive its entire value from its walls. A hospitality and tourism destination depends on its location, recreational attractions, customer experience, accessibility and the commercial activities that make it desirable. The beachfront was not an incidental addition to Landmark’s business model. It was central to its identity and attraction.
The Cable’s May 2024 investigation documented the immediate consequences for businesses operating within the ecosystem. Some businesses lost their investments, customers and employees. Others reported sharp declines in patronage because the disappearance of the beach affected the wider destination’s appeal. The experience of these businesses illustrates an economic reality that government planners must never underestimate: destroying one component of an interconnected commercial ecosystem can weaken enterprises that are not physically demolished.
A restaurant can remain standing and still lose its customers. A hotel can retain its rooms and still experience reduced patronage. An event centre can remain operational while the surrounding leisure environment that makes the destination attractive loses its commercial vitality. Development policy must therefore look beyond buildings and consider the economic relationships that sustain them.
Perhaps the most intriguing dimension of the Landmark controversy is the subsequent adjustment of the coastal highway’s alignment and the different explanations offered by the government at various stages of the project. In May 2024, barely weeks after the demolition controversy erupted, the Minister of Works, David Umahi, announced a decision to revert to the original gazetted alignment between kilometres 16 and 25 of the first 47-kilometre phase. The adjustment was intended to address concerns involving undersea telecommunications cables and historic community interests.
The Foundation for Investigative Journalism subsequently examined the implications of the decision and established that Landmark was located within kilometres 1 to 15. Consequently, the May 2024 adjustment did not spare Landmark from the consequences of the alignment already selected for its section of the highway. That distinction is important. It would be inaccurate to suggest that the entire highway was subsequently moved away from Landmark or that every demolition associated with the resort became unnecessary. Nevertheless, the decision demonstrated that government could reconsider engineering arrangements when confronted with competing infrastructure and community interests.
The controversy resurfaced in September 2025 when Umahi disclosed that the ministry had varied the design around Landmark to avoid demolishing its beach infrastructure. He explained that the six-lane highway was divided into two carriageways, with three lanes on either side, to protect the resort. The minister went further to insist that Landmark Beach itself had not been demolished, describing the structures removed as surrounding shanties.
That explanation, however, sits uneasily alongside the documented demolition of beachfront facilities in April 2024, including Island Breeze restaurant and Lagos Beach Club. It also contradicts Onwuanibe’s account that a substantial portion of the beach was destroyed. The two accounts cannot simply be treated as identical descriptions of the same outcome. The minister’s explanation appears to be related to the subsequent engineering design and the protection of remaining permanent structures, while the earlier reports document facilities and commercial operations that had already been lost. The distinction is important because protecting the surviving buildings does not automatically restore the beachfront attractions and businesses that were affected.
There was another episode in October 2026 when Umahi initially announced that the coastal highway would be diverted through the existing East-West Road from Ondo into Edo State, citing difficult terrain and flooding challenges. He subsequently clarified that the coastal highway’s alignment remained intact and that the government intended to construct an additional connecting spur to the East-West Road.
Thus, the latest announcement should not be represented as proof that the entire coastal highway was abandoned or rerouted away from Landmark. But the sequence of design adjustments, explanations and clarifications reinforces the need for transparency in the management of a project of such national significance. The central question remains: if engineering adjustments were possible, what alternatives were fully examined before the Landmark beachfront was subjected to demolition? Why should an investor have to witness the destruction of part of an established commercial enterprise before the government demonstrates the flexibility to reconsider engineering arrangements? That is the question the Ministry of Works must answer with technical documentation, not political assurances.
Nigeria’s development challenge is not simply a shortage of roads. It is a shortage of productive economic opportunities, sustainable employment, investment confidence and institutions capable of protecting the conditions necessary for businesses to thrive. Tourism is an important component of economic diversification because it creates commercial opportunities across several interconnected industries. A successful tourism destination supports hotels, restaurants, transportation services, entertainment, event management, retail businesses, food supplies, security services and numerous informal enterprises. The destruction or disruption of one major tourism destination can therefore produce consequences far beyond the physical location affected.
Perhaps the most painful dimension of this controversy is its relationship with Nigeria’s poverty and unemployment challenges. Nigeria suffers from an insufficient number of enterprises capable of creating sustainable employment, generating tax revenue and expanding economic opportunities. Every successful business represents a potential source of livelihood for families whose bread winners are drivers, suppliers, contractors and providers of other essential services.
In a country where millions of citizens face economic hardship, government should be particularly conscious of the consequences of disrupting existing sources of employment. No doubt the coastal highway could eventually create economic opportunities when completed as it would open up many towns and villages which were hitherto not accessible by road .
The concern is whether the anticipated benefits must be pursued at the expense of existing investments with huge economic value when reasonable alternatives could have been explored. A responsible development strategy should seek to expand the economic base. It should create new opportunities without unnecessarily destroying existing ones. It should connect markets while protecting productive enterprises. It should make investment more attractive, not create apprehension among those already willing to invest. This is the distinction between infrastructure construction and genuine economic development.
Ultimately, this is not merely about one entrepreneur, one resort or one highway. It is about the kind of economic environment Nigeria intends to create. A country cannot consistently invite private capital to participate in national development while failing to demonstrate that existing investments will receive fair and lawful treatment when public projects affect them. Neither can a government credibly preach economic diversification, job creation and poverty reduction while ignoring the economic consequences of decisions that disrupt established businesses.
The Lagos-Calabar Coastal Highway may eventually become an important transportation asset. Its potential contribution to trade, mobility, tourism and regional integration should not be dismissed. But the success of infrastructure development should not be measured exclusively by the length of roads constructed, the amount of money expended or the political visibility of the project. It must also be measured by the economic opportunities preserved, the businesses supported, the livelihoods protected and the confidence created among investors.
For Onwuanibe, the Landmark experience is a painful reminder of the risks associated with committing substantial capital to an economy where public infrastructure decisions can fundamentally alter the fortunes of private enterprise. For the affected entrepreneurs, it is a story of interrupted dreams, uncertain livelihoods and investments whose future became entangled in a national infrastructure project. For the Federal government, the demolition of parts of Landmark, is an uncomfortable examination of the gap between the rhetoric of investment promotion and the practical responsibilities of governance.
The Federal Government must understand that the road to national prosperity cannot be paved with the economic ruins of citizens who have demonstrated the courage to invest in their country. A highway should connect opportunities, open markets and stimulate commerce. It should not become an instrument through which existing economic value is casually sacrificed without compelling justification, due process and appropriate compensation.
The real test of leadership is not simply the ability to build a road. It is the wisdom to know what should not be destroyed in the process of building it. And that is the paradox surrounding citizen Onwuanibe, the demolition of the $200 million Landmark Beach investment and the coastal highway. It has become a test of Nigeria’s commitment to enterprise, responsible governance and economic confidence. Potential investors are watching how this is resolved. Will Onwuanibe be adequately compensated or left to lick his woods all alone? Time will tell.
Kalu Okoronkwo is a communications strategist, a leadership and good governance advocate dedicated to impactful societal development and can be reached via kalu.okoronkwo@gmail.com.
