Controversy Trails Naming of NAUTH Edifice After Tinubu, Despite Praise for Modern Facility

 

Naming of Ultra-Modern NAUTH Complex After President Tinubu Draws Mixed Reactions

The unveiling of a new administrative complex at the permanent site of the Nnamdi Azikiwe University Teaching Hospital (NAUTH) in Nnewi, Anambra State, has ignited a wave of mixed reactions—praise for the facility’s architectural brilliance, yet controversy over the decision to name it after President Bola Ahmed Tinubu.

The structure, officially christened the Bola Ahmed Tinubu Administrative Complex, stands tall as a multi-million-naira investment in public health infrastructure. Touted by many as one of the most advanced administrative buildings in the Nigerian public healthcare sector, the edifice is yet to be formally commissioned but already symbolizes NAUTH’s ongoing efforts to solidify its standing as a leading tertiary medical institution.

Designed with contemporary office layouts, cutting-edge conference facilities, and a focus on digital administrative systems, the complex promises to bring a leap in operational efficiency for the hospital’s management and staff. In terms of physical infrastructure, it’s a clear win.

But what has not gone down quite as smoothly is the decision to inscribe the President’s name on the structure—particularly in a region where his political clout remains under scrutiny. Critics and supporters alike have taken to social media platforms to air their divergent views, turning what should have been a straightforward celebration of progress into a contentious public discourse.

Many in the South-East have questioned the rationale behind naming the building after Tinubu, arguing that the President has no direct ties to the institution or the region’s healthcare development history. For some, the naming decision reeks of political calculation rather than institutional merit.

Kelvin Alphonsus, reacting online, wrote, “What exactly did Tinubu do for NAUTH to deserve this? Why not name it after Prof. Udeze or any of the founding figures who truly shaped the hospital’s legacy?”

This sentiment was echoed by Franklin Bernard, who described the move as “a desperate attempt at appeasement.” “Our hospitals are dying, our doctors are fleeing, yet the priority is to name buildings after politicians?” he asked pointedly.

Others have voiced concern about the optics, especially at a time when Tinubu’s administration is facing backlash over its economic policies—most notably the fuel subsidy removal and the resulting spike in inflation. For many ordinary Nigerians battling financial hardship and inadequate healthcare services, such gestures appear out of touch.

Still, not everyone shares this critical stance. Defenders of the naming decision argue that it’s not unusual to recognize sitting presidents, particularly if landmark projects were completed under their watch. One commenter, Amechi Ojukwu, remarked, “People will always talk. If the building had been named after an unknown figure, the outrage would still be there. Let’s learn to appreciate leadership too.”

Others view the naming as an effort toward fostering national cohesion. Chuka Obidigbo, another respondent, suggested that it might be a sign of openness and healing. “We can’t continue isolating ourselves. If we must move forward as a nation, we must learn to give honour irrespective of where the person comes from,” he said.

Despite the arguments on either side, questions remain about institutional legacy and priorities. Critics have raised the issue of whether naming rights at public institutions should follow political trends or be rooted in professional contributions to health and medicine. “When did politics become a bigger yardstick than merit?” asked Lilian Nwachukwu.

In the midst of the noise, one fact is clear: the Bola Ahmed Tinubu Administrative Complex represents a significant infrastructural upgrade for NAUTH. Yet, the controversy it has sparked underscores a broader national tension—between symbolism and substance, between politics and public service.

Whether this move will be remembered as a step toward integration or as a tone-deaf misstep in a volatile socio-political climate remains to be seen. For now, the building stands—modern, gleaming, and heavily debated.