By Toba Owojaiye
Enugu, Nigeria
The recent concession of Akanu Ibiam International Airport in Enugu State to the scarcely known Aero Alliance Consortium for an initial term of 80 years has drawn intense scrutiny over the Federal Government’s lack of transparency and accountability. The deal, which emerged quietly and without public bidding, now appears even more consequential following the shutdown of the airport for “emergency repairs” scheduled to last two weeks.
Despite the gravity of the concession, the Federal Ministry of Aviation and Aerospace Development and the Federal Airports Authority of Nigeria (FAAN) have yet to issue an official press release clarifying the process, raising fresh concerns over the government’s management of national assets.
According to a leaked draft of the 64-page concession agreement, the terms of the deal grant Aero Alliance Consortium sweeping control over the airport’s operations, with significant long-term implications:
Tenure & Extension: The concession will run for an initial period of 80 years, starting from the effective date, and may be extended by up to 20 years based on performance. However, it may also be terminated early for non-compliance.
Termination & Compensation: If the grantor (the Federal Government) defaults, Clause 18 mandates full compensation, including the payment of outstanding loans, third-party liabilities, equity investments, and projected returns to the concessionaire.
Oversight Mechanism: A five-member compliance monitoring team will oversee the agreement—three representatives from the grantor and two from the concessionaire. In the event of a deadlock, the Infrastructure Concession Regulatory Commission (ICRC) will step in with a binding resolution within five business days.
Staff Transition: All airport staff under FAAN will be transferred to the concessionaire for an initial 24-month period, maintaining their full benefits. If restructuring renders them redundant, they will be reabsorbed by the Federal Government, which will also resume responsibility for their pensions and gratuities.
Revenue & Tariff Control:
Aeronautical revenue streams (e.g., landing fees, passenger service charges) must be submitted to the government for approval.
However, non-aeronautical revenues (cargo fees, parking, rentals, lounges, etc.) fall fully under the control of Aero Alliance. The concessionaire is not obligated to seek approval for these fees, though it must adhere to applicable legal limits.
Use of Revenue: The collected tariffs will be used to fund operations, maintenance, debt servicing, statutory taxes, and capital investments.
Auditing & Reporting:
Clauses 14.7 and 15 mandate quarterly financial reports from the concessionaire to the Federal Government.
These reports must detail maintenance logs, progress on upgrades based on KPIs, operations, and full financial breakdowns.
Force Majeure Cost Sharing:
In the case of non-political force majeure events (e.g., natural disasters), each party bears its own costs.
For indirect political events (e.g., strikes, civil unrest), the concessionaire covers costs up to insurance claims; the remainder is split 50/50.
If a political event (e.g., expropriation or discriminatory laws) occurs, the grantor is fully liable to reimburse the concessionaire.
ICRC’s Cut: The Infrastructure Concession Regulatory Commission is entitled to 1% of the net income from all airport-generated revenues.
These terms reveal just how extensive and binding the agreement is, despite the absence of public participation or legislative oversight in the process.
Several aviation labour unions—including ANAP, ATSSSAN, and NUATE—have raised red flags, calling the process “fraudulent and opaque.” They argue that no stakeholder consultations took place and no official publication of bidders or due diligence was released, as is standard practice in public-private partnership arrangements.
“Our workers were caught unawares. This deal was done behind closed doors. There are serious questions about Aero Alliance’s capacity, credibility, and origin,” said one union leader.
Governor Peter Mbah of Enugu State, widely touted as Nigeria’s best-performing governor due to his trailblazing infrastructure projects and innovative leadership, has not been linked to the process. It remains unclear whether he was consulted prior to the deal’s execution. This omission is particularly striking given that the airport lies within his jurisdiction and is a vital artery for the economic ambitions of the state.
Observers are raising eyebrows at how such a massive federal decision could bypass a sitting governor whose developmental strides have become a benchmark for governance across the nation.
Beyond union protests, citizens and public policy analysts are raising valid questions:
Why was the bidding process shrouded in secrecy?
Who exactly owns or backs Aero Alliance Consortium?
What protection does the agreement offer Nigeria in the long term?
There is increasing concern that the deal may be a precursor to similar opaque concessions across the country—particularly for other international airports like those in Kano, Port Harcourt, and Lagos.
The Enugu Airport concession, with its complex 64-page framework, has far-reaching economic, political, and social implications. Unless the Federal Government steps forward to clarify the process, publish the full agreement, and reveal the ownership structure of Aero Alliance Consortium, this deal may go down as one of the most controversial concessions in Nigeria’s recent history.
At stake is not just infrastructure—it is public trust, national sovereignty, and the very integrity of Nigeria’s approach to public-private partnerships.