REFORM TALKS with Enam Obiosio
The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development’s growing investment footprint in Nigeria deserves more attention than the headline figure of €162 million suggests. Nigeria has only been an EBRD recipient country since February 2025, yet the institution already has six active projects in the country, with €65 million disbursed or issued in guarantees. The private sector accounts for 47 percent of the portfolio.
I see this as an opportunity for the federal government to demonstrate whether Nigeria can move beyond attracting development finance to converting it into productive economic capacity.
That distinction matters. Capital entering an economy does not automatically translate into prosperity. Its value depends on what it builds, how efficiently it is deployed, who gains access to the opportunities it creates and whether the resulting infrastructure or businesses can generate sustainable economic activity.
The EBRD’s portfolio gives Nigeria several opportunities to prove this.
The Nigeria Sovereign Fibre Project is perhaps the clearest example. The EBRD is providing up to $100 million to support Nigeria’s participation in a special-purpose vehicle for the nationwide rollout of about 90,000 kilometres of fibre-optic infrastructure. The project is supported by up to €22 million in European Union grants for technical assistance, including network design and capacity building.
I believe the federal government should treat this project not simply as a telecommunications infrastructure programme but as an economic productivity project.
If implemented properly, broadband infrastructure can lower transaction costs for businesses, expand digital services, improve access to markets and create opportunities for technology-driven enterprises. It can also make it easier for small businesses outside major commercial centres to participate in the formal economy.
But that value will not come from kilometres of fibre alone. The government must establish clear delivery milestones, publish implementation progress and connect infrastructure deployment to measurable outcomes such as broadband access, business adoption, digital service delivery and private-sector investment.
The September 23 procurement notice is already an indication that the project is moving into a more concrete implementation phase. It provides for consultancy services supported by the €22 million EU grant and a €500,000 contribution from EBRD shareholder funds.
This is where I think transparency becomes particularly important. Nigerians should be able to see what is being procured, what is being delivered, where infrastructure is being deployed and what outcomes are being achieved.
The second opportunity is transport infrastructure.
The EBRD has approved a €162 million corporate facility for Mota-Engil Africa, but the facility covers projects across several African countries. Only €63 million relates to railway construction equipment in Nigeria, while €99 million is connected to mining-services activities in Côte d’Ivoire and Senegal.
That distinction is important because the Nigerian component should not be presented as though Nigeria is receiving the entire €162 million facility.
For Nigeria, however, the €63 million component still matters. Railway infrastructure has implications for movement of people, movement of goods and the cost of connecting production centres to markets.
My concern is that infrastructure projects in Nigeria have too often been judged by announcements, contracts and financing commitments rather than by the economic activity they ultimately create.
The federal government should therefore insist on an implementation framework that measures delivery against time, cost, functionality and economic impact. Where public and private capital are being deployed together, accountability should extend across the entire project chain.
There is another lesson in the EBRD’s wider African portfolio. As of August 31, telecommunications, media and technology accounted for €256 million, food and agribusiness €148 million, and financial institutions €96 million. Together, these sectors represented about 81 percent of the €615 million regional sector portfolio.
I consider that allocation significant because it shows where development finance is being directed: infrastructure, productive sectors, financial intermediation and technology.
Nigeria should position itself to capture more of this capital, but not by simply asking international institutions to finance projects. The government needs to make projects investable.
That means improving project preparation, strengthening regulatory certainty, reducing unnecessary administrative delays and ensuring that public institutions responsible for implementation have the technical capacity to manage large-scale financing.
The EBRD itself has identified some of the risks facing Nigeria, including inflation, higher energy prices, possible investment delays ahead of the 2027 elections and adverse weather conditions affecting agriculture. Its assessment also points to the importance of better governance, improved security and continued efforts to strengthen the business environment.
I would therefore urge the federal government to establish an EBRD implementation and investment-tracking mechanism that brings together the relevant ministries, regulators, project sponsors and private-sector stakeholders.
Its mandate should be straightforward: track every project, identify bottlenecks early, publish progress and measure economic outcomes.
The government should also use the EBRD relationship strategically. Nigeria is not merely a recipient of development finance. It can become a platform through which international capital participates in infrastructure, technology, agriculture, finance and other productive sectors.
That requires a stronger pipeline of investment-ready projects.
The EBRD’s stated ambition to expand its Sub-Saharan African operations and invest more than €1 billion annually in the region from 2027 makes this even more relevant. Nigeria will have to compete with other African markets for that capital.
I believe the real policy question is therefore no longer whether Nigeria can attract international development finance. The more important question is whether the country can build the institutional machinery required to convert that finance into productive assets, competitive businesses and broader economic opportunities.
The €162 million EBRD portfolio provides a useful starting point.
The federal government should now make execution the measure of success.
