Misleading Narratives vs Reality: Setting the Record Straight on Lagos Airport Parking and Aviation Accountability

Henry Agbebire, Director, Public Affairs and Consumer Protection at FAAN

In the fast-paced world of digital journalism, a compelling headline can travel farther than the truth it is meant to convey. This reality played out recently in an opinion article titled “Economic Insensitivity: The Arbitrary Spike in Parking Rate at Lagos Airport.” While the concerns raised about rising costs deserve public attention, the framing of the piece, and more importantly, its attribution, was fundamentally misleading.

Let us be clear from the outset: the parking rate issue referenced in that article pertains to the Murtala Muhammed Airport Terminal 2 (MMA2), a privately operated terminal concessioned to Bi-Courtney Aviation Services Limited. It is not a facility managed or operated by the Federal Airports Authority of Nigeria (FAAN).

However, by broadly referring to “Lagos Airport” and illustrating the story with images of the Murtala Muhammed International Airport (MMIA), which is under FAAN’s management, the article creates a powerful but erroneous association in the public mind. This is not a trivial mistake. In aviation, perception is reality, and misinformation, even when unintended, carries significant consequences.

The Lagos airport ecosystem is unique and often misunderstood. MMA2 (Terminal 2) is operated entirely by Bi-Courtney Aviation Services Limited under a concession agreement. All commercial decisions within this terminal, including parking fees, are the responsibility of the concessionaire. MMIA (the international terminal and other FAAN-operated domestic terminals) is managed by the Federal Airports Authority of Nigeria, which oversees infrastructure, safety, and service delivery across federal government-owned airports nationwide.

It is important to clarify, for the benefit of the flying public, that FAAN’s mandate is specifically tied to airports owned by the Federal Government of Nigeria. Not all airports in the country fall under this purview. Nigeria’s aviation landscape includes concessioned terminals, such as MMA2, operated by private entities like Bi-Courtney Aviation Services Limited;
State-owned airports, developed and managed by state governments; and privately managed or specialized aerodromes, operating under approved frameworks.

While these airports and terminals may differ in ownership and management, they are all regulated by the Nigerian Civil Aviation Authority (NCAA), with overarching policy guidance from the Federal Ministry of Aviation and Aerospace Development. This distinction is critical to understanding where operational responsibility, and accountability, truly lies.
This is why the difference is not merely academic; it is operational, legal, and financial. Conflating FAAN-managed airports with privately operated terminals misdirects accountability and unfairly implicates an institution that has no control over the issue in question.

The aviation sector is one of the most sensitive and perception-driven industries in any economy. A single misleading headline can erode public trust in airport authorities, misguide regulatory expectations by placing pressure on the wrong institutions, undermine investor confidence, especially in a sector where public-private partnerships are critical, and distort policy conversations, leading to ineffective or misplaced interventions. In this instance, calling on FAAN and the Honourable Minister to intervene in a pricing decision taken by a private concessionaire reflects a misunderstanding of governance structures within Nigeria’s aviation framework.

Henry Agbebire, Director, Public Affairs and Consumer Protection at FAAN further stated that opinion pieces are powerful tools for shaping discourse. But with that power comes responsibility, particularly in sectors like aviation where operational structures are complex and where safety, efficiency, and public confidence are deeply interdependent. Writers and analysts must go beyond surface-level observations. A simple verification, identifying who owns and operates a facility, can prevent widespread misinformation.

This is not about silencing criticism. On the contrary, constructive criticism grounded in facts is essential for progress. But when facts are blurred, even valid concerns lose credibility.

The Federal Airports Authority of Nigeria has consistently demonstrated its commitment to transparency and public engagement. It has, on several occasions, issued clarifications to correct misconceptions about airport operations, infrastructure responsibilities, and service delivery standards.

As Nigeria continues to modernize its aviation sector, clear communication becomes even more critical. FAAN’s mandate as an airport management and development authority must be understood within its proper scope, and accountability must be directed accurately.

Mislabeling MMA2 as “Lagos Airport” in a way that implicates FAAN is not just an editorial oversight; it is a distortion that affects reputations, policy dialogue, and public perception.

In an era where information spreads instantly, accuracy is no longer optional; it is essential. The aviation ecosystem depends on trust: trust in institutions, trust in operators, and trust in information.

For journalists, analysts, and commentators, the charge is simple but profound: verify before amplifying. In aviation, as in journalism, precision is not a luxury; it is a necessity.