Aviation unions have unanimously dragged the Minister of Aviation, Senator Hadi Sirika, and the Federal Airports Authority of Nigeria (FAAN) before a law court over the plans to concession the four most lucrative airports in the country.
The unions, under the aegis of Air Transport Services Senior Staff Association of Nigeria (ATSSAN), National Union of Air Transport Employees (NUATE), Association of Nigeria Aviation Professionals (ANAP) and the Nigeria Union of Pensioners (NUP) FAAN branch, to drive home their points have engaged the services of the foremost legal luminary, Femi Falana Chambers, to challenge the case at the National Industrial Court in the Lagos Judicial Division in Lagos State.
The unions are, among other reasons, saying that the Ministry of Aviation and FAAN are not competent to concession any airports in the country as planned.
The originating summon dated March 14, 2023, had the Ministry of Aviation as the first defendant, while FAAN was the second defendant in the case, which is yet to be assigned to a judge.
According to the claimants, the four airports targeted for concession – Murtala Muhammed Airport (MMA), Lagos; Malam Aminu Kano International Airport (MAKIA); Port Harcourt International Airport (PHIA), Omagwa and the Nnamdi Azikiwe International Airport (NAIA), Abuja – are the assets of the Federal Government, alleging that the government was not aware of the planned concession of the airports.
The unions are arguing that the first and the second defendants could not solely set aside the four airports for concession without the consent and authority of the Federal Government, the 36 state governments and the 774 local government councils in Nigeria.
The unions therefore, while seeking for an order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from concessioning the four airports, equally, asked for an order of injunction restraining the defendants from determining the employment of the staff without complying with the provisions of FAAN Act (CAP F5) Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004 and FAAN renewed Conditions of Service 2021 in any manner whatsoever and however.
Furthermore, the unions claimed that the proposed concession of the airport did not consider the implication of handing such important national security assets over to foreigners, adding that the government also failed to address the payment of severance benefits to its members working in FAAN, along with pension arrears estimated at N150 billion.
The unions, through their lawyer, claimed that FAAN generates an average of N70 to N75 billion annually from over 26 airports, yet remits an average of N1 billion monthly into the Federation Account, while monthly salaries of its over 8,000 staff currently stands at over N2.3 billion.
According to the unions, several efforts made to resolve the disputes concerning the proposed concession of the airports, through series of meetings held with the defendants failed to yield the desired results due to what the unions called the “recalcitrant attitude of the defendants.”
Stating that the concession exercise lacked transparency while other important factors like gratuity and pensions of staff were not put into consideration, the unions alleged that the second defendant had usurped the statutory duties of the Board of Directors in FAAN with its duties, saying that members of board were not inaugurated in the past eight years as entrenched in its Act.
The unions stated that the three of the four airports slated for concession – Murtala Muhammed Airport (MMA), Lagos, Malam Aminu Kano International Airport (MAKIA), and Port Harcourt International Airport (PHIA), Omagwa – were established by the British Government with taxes appropriated from the colony of Nigeria after when the airports were transferred to the Federal Government on October 1, 1960 and the government had since been operating them.
The unions maintained that the proposed concession of the airports could not be justified because the terminals required no further investments for the envisaged period of the concession, among others.
The document sighted partly read, “But without the consent and authority of the Federal Government, the defendants have concluded arrangements to concession the Aminu Kano International Airport, Kano, Port Harcourt International Airport, Murtala Muhammed International Airport, Lagos and Nnamdi Azikiwe International Airport, Abuja.”
“The proposed concession of the four airports by the defendants cannot be justified on the following grounds: The terminals require no further investments for the envisaged period of the concession.
“The scope of the concession to the surroundings of the terminals, up to FAAN Housing Estates did not take the assets validation into account; arbitrary fixing of profit sharing ratio (60:40) in favour of the concessionaire; the concession is being undertaken by the Ministry of Aviation and not by the second defendant, which negates the concession Act.”
The minister had last year, said the Request for Proposals (RFP) phase of the Nigeria Airports Concession Programme (NACP), saw the emergence of preferred and reserve bidders for three out of the four airports and cargo terminals as approved for concession under the programme in line with the Infrastructure Concession Regulatory Commission (ICRC) Act, 2005 and global best practice.
The minister mentioned Corporacion America Airports Consortium as the preferred bidder for Abuja airport while ENL Consortium was selected as the reserve bidder for the airport.
For Lagos Airport, he mentioned TAV/NAHCO/Project Planet Limited (PPL) consortium, while SIFAX/Changi Consortium was selected as the reserve bidder for the airport just as he mentioned Corporacion America Airports Consortium as the preferred bidder for Kano Airport without reserve bidders.
In a swift kick, two months after the announcement, SIFAX Group of Companies Limited, the reserved bidder for Lagos Airport, approached a Federal High Court in Lagos to disqualify Tav Airports Holding Company and GMR Airport Limited on the ground that both firms owned by the same company, Airport De Paris (ADP) submitted separate bids for MMIA and were shortlisted for the next phase of the concession.
SIFAX, in its submission to the court, contended that this breached the “specific precept of the RFQ,” which states that no applicant is entitled to bid for any of the specific assets twice under any guise or form.
