Mixed feelings over unending years of litigations between FAAN, Bicourtney

TWENTY four years after the original terminal building at the Murtala Muhammed local airport was consumed mysteriously, and seventeen years after a new one was built and being managed by Bi-Courtney Aviation Services Limited under a Build Operate and Transfer (BOT) arrangement, the terminal, the first of its kind in the region is yet to enjoy its full potential.

After the old terminal got burnt in 2001, it took the government many months to arrive at the decision to throw open the reconstruction of the destroyed terminal through a Private and Public  Practice, the first of its kind in the sector.

With the bid for the award of the contract thrown open, Royal Sanderson originally won the contract however lost it to Bi-Courtney Aviation Services Limited (BASL) owing to the logistics issues that confronted the Canadian based firm.

Without further delay, Bi-Courtney swung into action, but not until it signed a concession agreement with the Federal Government to rebuild the burnt terminal on a BOT arrangement.

While what actually transpired at the critical meeting held between the officials of the federal government ably represented by the senior officials of the legal department of the Federal Airports Authority of Nigeria (FAAN) and the representatives of Bi-Courtney during the signing of the binding agreement between them on the conditions the contract must follow, these principal actor must have signed an agreement that empowered  Bi-Courtney to commence the reconstruction of the new terminal.

Unfortunately up till now, almost 18 years after the deal was signed and sealed by the two parties, not many people have seen a clean copy of the agreement stating how many years Bi-Courtney, the operators of the new terminal was supposed to run the terminal to recoup its money before handing over to FAAN.

There are up to two versions of agreements being paraded by both sides which has become the Achilles heels of the supposedly beautiful partnership.

While Bi-Courtney is holding on to the fact that the agreement in its possession allows it to manage the terminal for 36 years, FAAN on its side is claiming 12 years was in the agreement in its custody.

The once beautiful partnership went sour following the inability of the two sides to agree on the number of years to run the terminal on one side, and who has the capacity to manage the General Aviation Terminal (GAT) One at the local wing of the airport also.

The climax of the back and forth over the authentic years of agreement was when the principal actors dragged each other before the court justifying their positions thus raising a big question about the credibility of business agreements in the country.

Seventeen years after Bi-Courtney has continued to provide standard services to travelers and airport users through the facilities available in the terminal, the subsequent governments have failed to intervene in the legal battles which without doubt has negatively impacted private investments.

Read Also: US: Wildfires in California are easily avoidable — Elon Musk

With the appointment of the present minister of aviation and aerospace development, Festus Keyamo who is a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, the hope was high that he will use his professional background to resolve the crisis and many others hanging on FAAN.

Many key players who spoke on the lingering court cases between FAAN and its concessionaires, particularly Bi-Courtney are of the view that the solution to the litigation over the years within when the terminal should remain in the hands of Bi-Courtney lies within the power of government.

Key players react:

According to a member of Aviation Round Table (ART), Mr Olumide Ohunayo, the lingering crisis would have been avoided should those who signed on behalf of the government had been more proactive before signing such agreements.

His words: “On FAAN and Bi-Courtney, the litigation is lingering, the relationship gets hot today and gets cold tomorrow. I think there is need for arbitration and I think the presidency can step in and see how it can be resolved. They can work together and see how they can harmonize the past agreements and whatever is the bone of contention can be cleared with the presidential arbitration panel and I don’t think that should be by any of the parties. We need to learn from Ogun State that agreements are sacrosanct and we must watch what we sign and take our time before we put a pen to paper because if you don’t commit yourself you may may commit the entire country just as the Ogun State has done with the expert processing zone.”

For the Chief Executive Officer of Selective Security International, Mr. Ayo Obilana, it may be difficult to resolve the pending litigation between FAAN & Concessioners  because it was the past administration in FAAN that signed agreements which are binding and not in the interest of FAAN.

According to Obilana: “Nothing can be done about it. My personal opinion is to reach out for amicable out-of- court settlements.”