Godwin Shaibu
A viral post by Okonkwo Chinedu celebrating the performance of Igbo cities in the 2026 Global Cities Index declares that “Ndigbo does not wait for the government to develop his land. He develops it himself.”
The post highlights Onitsha, Owerri, Enugu and Aba among Nigeria’s highest-ranked cities, attributing their development to Igbo entrepreneurship, private investment and the apprenticeship system. It argues that these cities have grown despite limited federal support, inadequate infrastructure and historical disadvantages. It also calls on Igbo people to keep investing in their homeland under the principle of Aku Ruo Ulo, or bringing wealth home.
Join our WhatsApp ChannelThe figures offer a reason to celebrate commercial resilience. But they also reveal an uncomfortable contrast: Onitsha, celebrated as Nigeria’s third-highest-ranked city, is only 802nd globally. The question is not whether Igbo enterprise has built thriving commercial centres. It is why that enterprise has not translated into stronger overall urban performance.
READ ALSO: “We Need Stiffer Punishment for Women Beaters” – Obi of Onitsha
Compiled by Oxford Economics, the 2026 Global Cities Index ranks 1,000 cities across five categories: economics, human capital, quality of life, environment and governance. These measure a city’s economic strength, its workforce and skills, residents’ well-being, environmental conditions and the effectiveness of its institutions. The categories combine to produce an overall score.
The eight Nigerian cities listed in the post are Lagos, ranked 485th globally; Abuja, 741st; Onitsha, 802nd; Owerri, 817th; Enugu, 850th; Ibadan, 881st; Aba, 925th; and Port Harcourt, 956th. Lagos is the only one in the global top 500. The other seven rank below it, with Port Harcourt close to the bottom of the 1,000-city list. The rankings measure more than commercial activity, so they should not be read as a simple ranking of wealth or entrepreneurial effort.
Onitsha scored 24.6 out of 100 overall. Its scores were 27.1 in economics, 45.4 in human capital, 27.2 in quality of life, 54.2 in environment and 25.7 in governance. Its strongest category was environment, followed by human capital. Its economic and quality-of-life scores were much lower, while governance recorded the lowest score.
The figures show that the city’s commercial reputation and resourceful population have not been matched by quality of development generally.
This is Notwithstanding that the Igbo apprenticeship system demonstrates the power of private initiative. A 2024 study published in the journal Cities, examining Onitsha’s development, describes how established traders transfer business knowledge to apprentices, many of whom go on to establish their own businesses and train others.
New York, which ranked first in the index, scored 100 overall. Its economics score was 100, human capital 89.5, quality of life 80.8, environment 72.8 and governance 75.7. Its performance is supported by private enterprise and substantial public investment.
The city’s 2026–2035 capital plan provides $173.4 billion for infrastructure, including $32 billion for transportation, $24.7 billion for affordable housing and $23.8 billion for public schools. The comparison is not that New York has no problems or that the two cities are identical. It is that public investment in transport, housing, schools and other essential services forms part of the environment in which businesses operate and grow.
Anambra State’s 2025 budget was N606.99 billion, including N467.5 billion in capital expenditure. The state announced N200 billion for road projects, N32 billion for developing Awka 2.0, Onitsha 2.0 and a new industrial city, and N2.5 billion for transport and marine infrastructure.
These are state-wide allocations, not amounts dedicated exclusively to Onitsha. The question is whether public investment is being delivered effectively and at the scale required to address the constraints facing the city’s businesses.
Onitsha’s River Port also illustrates the gap between commercial potential and infrastructure delivery. Built in 1983 and rehabilitated in 2012, the port reopened in 2018 after another period of inactivity. In August 2025, its manager identified insecurity, low patronage and delayed dredging as obstacles to full operation. He said the port could generate up to N100 billion if fully operational.
A functioning port could reduce transport costs and provide traders and manufacturers with another route for moving goods. But its potential cannot be fully realised while obstacles to regular operations persist.
Aba’s manufacturing sector was producing decades before reliable electricity arrived. By 1961, its shoemaking industry comprised 92 enterprises employing 301 people. Yet in 2016, reportedly , the number of operating industries in Aba had fallen from 165 in 2005 to fewer than 30, amid persistent electricity and infrastructure challenges. Geometric Power’s 141-megawatt plant was commissioned in 2024, after years of delays.
According to the Manufacturers Association of Nigeria, Nigerian manufacturers spent N1.11 trillion on alternative energy in 2024 and N1.34 trillion in 2025. In 2026, manufacturers in Aba reported higher output following improvements in electricity supply.
These developments raise two questions: how much further could Aba’s industry have grown if reliable power had arrived earlier, and how effectively is the new supply meeting manufacturers’ needs? Aba’s 925th position shows the distance between the productivity its businesses have demonstrated and the level of overall government support.
Enugu’s Akanu Ibiam International Airport provides another example of how infrastructure problems can constrain commercial activity.
In September 2018, the five South-East governors raised concerns about the condition of Akanu Ibiam International Airport in Enugu, citing problems with the runway and lighting system. They said the lighting was inadequate for night landings, with no flights able to land after 6:30 p.m.
In November same year, the airport manager, Mgbemene Orji, said the facility could not operate round the clock because of structural deficiencies. It was then operating between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m., with inadequate approach lighting and other infrastructure problems affecting night operations.
The problems did not end with the year-long runway rehabilitation that followed the 2019 closure. In April 2025, the Federal Airports Authority of Nigeria shut the runway again after a significant rupture in the asphalt surface. Aviation Minister Festus Keyamo said the waterlogged section had not been properly constructed to prevent recurring cracks and potholes.
Although the federal government handed the airport to a concessionaire in June 2026, tasked with financing its rehabilitation, expansion, operation and management, the history of recurring runway failures raises a broader question about the durability of public works and whether the airport can consistently provide the reliable passenger and cargo services that businesses in the region need.
These are the limits of the Igbo hustle. The apprenticeship system can produce entrepreneurs, circulate capital and create jobs. Private investment can establish factories, hotels, warehouses and commercial networks.
The point is not simply to celebrate how much these cities have achieved despite their constraints. It is to ask what they could achieve if public investment matched the ambition and effort of the people building them.
Aku Ruo Ulo can bring wealth home, but turning that wealth into thriving cities requires more than the hustle of those who live and work in them. On the other hand, the rankings show that these cities remain pillars of the country.
READ ALSO:Nigeria audits public money What happens after the findings?
What Lagos and Abuja Hide: Lagos Was Built By Nigeria. Who Built The Rest?
The viral post by Mr Chinedu about Nigeria’s 2026 Global Cities Index ranking also argued that Igbo communities had built thriving cities despite the challenges they faced.
It also raised questions about the country’s development priorities, pointing to Lagos and Abuja as cities built with national resources while Onitsha, Owerri, Enugu and Aba grew through the efforts of their people.
The 2026 Global Cities Index ranked 18 Nigerian cities. Lagos placed 485th globally, followed by Abuja at 741st. Onitsha ranked 802nd, Owerri 817th, Enugu 850th, Ibadan 881st and Aba 925th.
The rankings place Lagos and Abuja ahead of the other cities, while several South-East cities feature among the country’s highest-ranked urban centres after them.
Chinedu’s post recalled the financial restrictions imposed on people in the former Eastern Region after the Civil War, the region’s destruction during the conflict and the challenges its people faced rebuilding their lives and businesses. It asked what the South-East might look like if it had enjoyed the same infrastructure and government support as other parts of the country.
Actually, the South-East’s development history includes a major disruption. The Nigerian Civil War, which ended in January 1970, devastated communities and disrupted economic life across the former Eastern Region. Infrastructure was damaged, livelihoods were lost and businesses faced the difficult task of rebuilding.
The post-war financial settlement added to the hardship experienced by many people. Under the £20 policy, people surrendering Biafran currency received a flat £20 regardless of the amount they held. The policy formed part of the financial circumstances in which people in the former region attempted to rebuild their lives and businesses.
Lagos, on the other hand, had a long head start. Under British colonial rule, it became an administrative centre and an important port. Railway construction linking Lagos to the hinterland began in 1898, and the Lagos–Ibadan line opened in 1901, strengthening connections between the port and inland commercial centres.
After independence, Lagos remained Nigeria’s federal capital until 1991. The World Bank’s 1985 report on urban infrastructure in Lagos noted that the federal and state governments had made substantial capital investments in major roads, airport and port facilities.
The relocation of the federal capital did not remove Lagos’s commercial importance. Its port, established businesses, financial institutions and transport links continued to support economic activity.
Abuja’s development followed a different but equally deliberate path. In 1976, the federal government established the Federal Capital Development Authority to plan and develop the new capital. The government then built the institutions and infrastructure needed to accommodate the presidency, ministries, national agencies and diplomatic missions.
This placed the country’s central administrative institutions in a purpose-built city. The presence of these institutions also created demand for housing, transport, services and businesses that depend on government operations. Abuja’s growth was therefore shaped not only by private investment but also by the federal government’s decision to locate its central institutions there.
Ibadan offers another perspective. Unlike Abuja, it was a major pre-colonial city before British rule. Its connection to Lagos through the railway strengthened its position as a regional commercial centre. Lagos and Ibadan therefore illustrate different routes through which cities can grow, including the influence of transport infrastructure and connections to larger markets.
The differences in infrastructure between Nigerian cities are not new. A World Bank report on Nigeria’s Second Multi-State Roads Project, published in the early 1990s and drawing on 1988 data, documented differences in the condition of state road networks.
The report recorded that 96 per cent of Lagos’s state road network was paved, compared with 64 per cent of the combined network in Imo and Abia. It also identified Anambra and Enugu among the states with the least-developed state road networks in terms of coverage and quality, with more than half of their state roads assessed as being in poor condition.
The figures are historical and cannot establish the present condition of roads in these states. They do, however, show that substantial differences in road infrastructure existed between Lagos and parts of the South-East decades ago.
Roads are not merely conveniences. They connect residential areas to workplaces, factories to markets, farmers to buyers and businesses to suppliers. A city with better connections can move people and goods more easily, while poor roads increase the cost and difficulty of doing business.
The question, then, is whether Nigeria can develop more cities into strong centres of economic activity by improving their infrastructure and deliberately supporting their growth.
Should Nigeria stop building one mega-city and invest in six regional anchors?
Nigeria could consider six regional economic anchors, one in each geopolitical zone. The need for this approach becomes clearer when regional poverty levels and the rankings of major cities are examined together.
The rankings also show that many Nigerian cities remain at the bottom of the global list. For instance In the North-West, Kaduna ranked 979th, Zaria 991st and Kano 992nd. In the North-East, Maiduguri ranked 995th.
These figures point to a wider challenge. Even cities in regions with major commercial, agricultural, industrial and natural-resource advantages have not translated those advantages into stronger global rankings. The figures do not, by themselves, establish why each city ranks where it does, but they raise questions about the infrastructure, public services and investment needed to improve urban development.
Since Nigeria has 36 states and the Federal Capital Territory,the country needs cities across its regions that can support businesses, attract investment, create jobs and provide residents with opportunities closer to home.
Hence, the need for a deliberate approach to developing the six regional economic anchors, with each region supported by coordinated infrastructure and investment suited to its economic strengths.
Such an approach would require more than announcing development plans. It would mean improving road networks and transport links, providing reliable public utilities, strengthening regional markets and ensuring that cities can connect producers, manufacturers and service providers to wider markets.
It would also require coordination between federal, state and local governments. State capitals and commercial centres should not be left to depend solely on their residents’ ability to build businesses despite infrastructure constraints. The government has a role in providing the conditions that allow those businesses to grow.
Developing regional anchors would not mean neglecting Lagos or Abuja. Both cities remain important to Nigeria’s economy and administration, but it will help bring about balance and reduce the concentration of people in Lagos and Abuja in search of a better life.
The aim would be to strengthen other cities so that economic opportunity, infrastructure and public services are not concentrated in so few places.
The experience of Lagos and Abuja shows the importance of deliberate planning and sustained development. The experience of cities such as Onitsha, Aba, Enugu and Owerri shows the commercial potential that exists beyond the country’s largest centres.
The point is not simply to celebrate what these cities have achieved despite their constraints. It is to ask what they could achieve if public infrastructure and government support matched the ambition of the people building them.
This approach would also require transparent data. Federal and state governments should publish comparable figures showing where capital projects are located, how much is allocated and spent, and what economic outcomes the investments produce.
Without such information, claims that one region has received more public investment than another remain difficult to test. Equally, governments cannot adequately assess the returns on investment if they do not measure how infrastructure affects productivity, business growth and employment.
The Port Harcourt: Don’t Claim Cities. Fix Them
Although, there has always been a divide in how the world tells its stories, and global rankings are one of the ways countries and cities are measured against one another. European and other Western cities often occupy the top positions, shaping the picture of what a successful global city looks like. But why can a Nigerian city not take the first position? If Lagos or Abuja becomes the world’s number one city, would that be an abomination?
The 2026 Global Cities Index by Oxford Economics ranked the 1,000 cities using five categories: economics, human capital, quality of life, environment and governance. New York ranked first, followed by London and Paris. No African city made the top ten. Cairo was Africa’s highest-ranked city at 255th, while Lagos, Nigeria’s highest-ranked city, came 485th. Abuja ranked 741st.
Oxford Economics itself notes that 78 of the first 100 cities in its ranking are in Europe and North America. It also says that the advantages of leading cities reinforce their position because they attract skilled workers and innovative businesses. Could that be the reason Port Harcourt ranked in the 956? The ranking raises an uncomfortable question: how can a city at the heart of Nigeria’s oil and gas industry, in a state that receives 13 per cent derivation revenue from the Federation Account, rank below Aba?
Port Harcourt is not short of economic advantages. It is a major centre for petroleum-related businesses and services, with a long history of industrial and commercial activity.
Rivers State is central to Nigeria’s oil economy, while the wider area has important maritime infrastructure, including Onne Port. Oil and gas have attracted companies, workers and businesses that serve the industry. The city also benefits from its position in the Niger Delta and the presence of federal institutions and agencies.
These advantages should create opportunities to build a city with reliable infrastructure, effective public services and a better quality of life. Yet Port Harcourt ranked 31 places below Aba.
Chinedu also included Port Harcourt in his argument about Igbo enterprise, despite the city being in the South-South. He argued that Igbo people had contributed significantly to its growth through their businesses, investments and commercial activities. In his view, their influence across the city’s economy makes Port Harcourt part of the wider story of Igbo entrepreneurship, even though it is outside the South-East.
But the bigger picture is troubling. Not one Nigerian city made the global top 100. Nigeria earns enormous revenue from its natural resources, yet its cities remain far down the list of places competing globally. Oil has been the backbone of Nigeria’s economy for decades. It has been the country’s biggest source of export earnings and a major source of government revenue, bringing billions of dollars into the country and making Nigeria one of Africa’s major oil producers. Yet, look at where Port Harcourt, the heart of the oil industry, stands in the world. Look at where Nigeria stands.
The lesson is that the 2026 Global Cities Index is not proof that Ndigbo has not tried. It is evidence of how Nigeria has failed its cities.
Igbo cities demonstrate the power of private enterprise, but they also show its limits: no matter how hard people work, entrepreneurship alone cannot build the infrastructure and public services needed to make a city globally competitive. Private effort alone has not been enough to push these cities into the global top 500.
