For nearly two decades, a concession intended to transform airport operations in Lagos became one of Nigeria’s most protracted infrastructure disputes, generating litigation, competing financial claims and stalled investments. In October 2026, Aviation Minister Festus Keyamo brought the Federal Government and Bi-Courtney Aviation Services Limited to a negotiated settlement involving the waiver of approximately N132 billion in claims. Beyond ending a legal confrontation, the agreement offers important lessons about leadership, contractual certainty and the economic cost of unresolved disputes.
On October 20, 2026, Aviation and Aerospace Development Minister Festus Keyamo raised both hands before journalists and aviation stakeholders in Abuja. Nearby stood Dr Wale Babalakin, chairman of Bi-Courtney Aviation Services Limited, whose company’s disagreement with the Federal Government had become one of Nigeria’s longest-running infrastructure controversies.
The occasion marked the signing of agreements intended to resolve the nearly two-decade dispute surrounding Murtala Muhammed Airport Terminal Two (MMA2), Lagos.
Central to the settlement was Bi-Courtney’s decision to waive a judgment debt and associated interest reportedly valued at approximately N132 billion.
The agreement brought a negotiated resolution to a controversy that had survived successive administrations, generated prolonged litigation and complicated the commercial development of important airport facilities.
Its significance extended beyond the financial claims. It demonstrated how unresolved contracts can undermine infrastructure investment and why effective dispute resolution remains essential to Nigeria’s economic development.
For Keyamo, appointed Aviation Minister in August 2023, the settlement represented a substantial achievement in an industry where complicated commercial disagreements have frequently outlived the officials tasked with resolving them.
How an airport concession became an 18-year dispute
The controversy began with a concession agreement signed in April 2003 between Bi-Courtney and the Federal Government.
Structured as a build-operate-transfer arrangement, the project was intended to mobilise private capital for the development and management of a modern domestic passenger terminal at Murtala Muhammed Airport.
MMA2 opened in 2007, becoming a prominent example of private-sector participation in Nigerian airport infrastructure.
However, disagreements subsequently emerged over the concession’s duration, exclusivity provisions and the rights attached to surrounding airport facilities.
The General Aviation Terminal, commonly known as MMA1, became a major point of contention.
Bi-Courtney maintained that certain government activities and facilities infringed upon its concession rights, while the Federal Airports Authority of Nigeria (FAAN) disputed aspects of the company’s claims.
The disagreements produced extensive litigation, including proceedings that reached the Supreme Court.
What began as an infrastructure partnership developed into a prolonged confrontation involving government agencies, commercial interests and substantial financial liabilities.
The dispute also affected the development of facilities associated with the concession, demonstrating how legal uncertainty can undermine the economic objectives of public-private partnerships.
The N132 billion waiver
The most consequential financial element of the October 2026 settlement was Bi-Courtney’s agreement to relinquish a judgment debt and accumulated interest reportedly worth approximately ₦132 billion.
The distinction is important: the waiver did not constitute N132 billion in new government revenue. It involved the cancellation of a substantial claim against the Federal Government.
For public finances, such claims represent potential liabilities that can complicate budgeting and financial planning.
For investors, unresolved judgments and competing interpretations of concession agreements raise concerns about contractual enforcement.
The MMA2 controversy created both problems.
Beyond the claims themselves, the dispute affected revenue collection, airport development and the working relationship between government and the concessionaire.
Resolving it therefore addressed more than a courtroom disagreement.
It created an opportunity to replace years of contested obligations with clearer commercial arrangements and renewed investment commitments.
How Keyamo secured the settlement
The agreement followed negotiations involving the Ministry of Aviation and Aerospace Development, FAAN, Bi-Courtney and Stabilini Visinoni Limited.
President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s administration approved the settlement framework through the Federal Executive Council on April 30, 2026.
The parties formally signed the agreements in Abuja on October 20.
Keyamo coordinated the government’s negotiations, working to reconcile competing contractual claims and operational interests.
The outcome required concessions from both parties.
Bi-Courtney agreed to waive specified financial claims, while the Federal Government and FAAN accepted arrangements intended to clarify historical disagreements and establish a more predictable relationship.
The settlement demonstrated the importance of negotiation in resolving complex infrastructure disputes.
Court decisions may establish legal rights, but restoring the commercial viability of disputed assets can require additional agreements addressing operational responsibilities and future investment.
At the signing ceremony, Babalakin acknowledged the roles of President Tinubu and Keyamo in facilitating the resolution.
For the administration, the agreement represented progress on an inherited controversy that had persisted through much of Nigeria’s Fourth Republic.
Restoring concession revenue to FAAN
One significant aspect of the settlement concerned revenue from MMA2.
According to Keyamo, FAAN had received no concession payments from the terminal for approximately two decades because of the dispute.
The new arrangements established a framework for payments to resume.
Airport authorities depend on internally generated revenue to maintain facilities, fund improvements and support operations.
A commercially active terminal operating amid unresolved revenue disagreements creates financial difficulties for public institutions and uncertainty for private investors.
The agreement also clarified the status of the General Aviation Terminal, which remains Federal Government property under FAAN’s operation.
This addressed a longstanding disagreement concerning control of airport facilities.
For government, the objective is to protect public assets and secure legitimate revenue.
For the concessionaire, contractual certainty provides a clearer foundation for investment and operational planning.
Both outcomes depend on the parties fulfilling their obligations under the revised agreements.
Reviving the abandoned hotel and conference centre
The controversy also affected the development of a hotel and conference centre associated with MMA2.
For years, the unfinished structures stood as visible reminders of the stalled commercial relationship.
Their importance extends beyond airport architecture.
Modern airports function as economic centres supporting hospitality, retail, conferences, transport services and employment.
Hotels and conference facilities near major terminals can attract business travellers, create jobs and expand commercial activity.
Under the settlement, the associated hotel and conference centre will be governed by separate lease arrangements intended to facilitate their completion and operation.
Bi-Courtney is expected to fulfil its development obligations under the new framework.
If completed and commercially successful, the facilities could strengthen the airport’s business environment and generate additional economic activity.
For now, those benefits remain prospective.
The true achievement will come when the unfinished buildings become operational assets rather than symbols of an unresolved dispute.
Opening MMA2 to regional flights
Another provision allows Bi-Courtney to expand MMA2’s apron and pursue regional flight operations within Africa, subject to regulatory requirements and available capacity.
The development could create additional opportunities for airlines serving West African destinations.
Lagos remains an important commercial centre, with substantial demand for business travel and regional connectivity.
More efficient regional services could improve passenger choice and stimulate economic activity around the airport.
However, contractual permission alone does not establish an international operation.
The airport must satisfy requirements relating to customs, immigration, security, infrastructure and regulatory approvals.
Commercial airlines must also determine whether proposed routes are economically viable.
The agreement therefore creates an opportunity rather than an immediately realised benefit.
Its success will depend on the quality of subsequent investment and operational planning.
What the agreement means for Nigeria’s investment climate
The Bi-Courtney dispute illustrates a wider weakness in Nigeria’s infrastructure development environment.
Public-private partnerships require clear contracts, credible institutions and reliable procedures for resolving disagreements.
Investors commit capital on the expectation that legitimate agreements will be respected.
Government must simultaneously protect public assets, enforce regulations and ensure that private operators fulfil their responsibilities.
When these interests become entangled in prolonged litigation, the consequences can extend far beyond the original transaction.
Projects are delayed; revenues remain uncollected and additional investment may be discouraged.
Such disputes can also influence how international financiers assess Nigeria’s commercial environment.
This is particularly important because the country’s infrastructure requirements exceed the resources government can provide independently.
Private capital will remain essential to airport modernisation and other major development programmes.
The MMA2 settlement offers an example of how sustained negotiation can resolve entrenched disagreements while preserving legitimate public and commercial interests.
It also reinforces the need for carefully drafted concession agreements and effective oversight from the beginning.
From settlement to economic results
The October 2026 agreement marked an important breakthrough, but implementation will determine its lasting significance.
FAAN must receive the concession payments due under the revised arrangements.
Bi-Courtney must meet its development and operational commitments.
The hotel and conference centre must progress towards completion, while proposed regional services require appropriate regulatory approvals.
Government agencies must continue enforcing aviation safety, security and maintenance standards.
These obligations represent the practical test of the settlement.
For Keyamo, the resolution forms part of a wider aviation reform programme addressing regulatory credibility, aircraft financing, international partnerships and infrastructure development.
But the Bi-Courtney agreement is distinctive because it deals with an existing dispute that had imposed financial and commercial uncertainty for nearly two decades.
The intervention was not simply an announcement of future investment.
It was an attempt to resolve a longstanding obstacle preventing important airport assets from achieving their intended economic value.
The real significance of the breakthrough
Nigeria’s aviation industry has experienced repeated cycles of infrastructure ambition, contractual disagreement and delayed implementation.
The consequences have been borne by public institutions, investors and ultimately the travelling public.
The Bi-Courtney settlement demonstrates that difficult commercial disputes can be addressed through negotiation, compromise and sustained institutional engagement.
For the Tinubu administration, it represents progress in resolving inherited obligations.
For Keyamo, it adds a significant contractual settlement to his record of aviation reform.
For Bi-Courtney, it creates an opportunity to pursue the commercial development envisaged under the concession.
But the broader national interest lies in what follows.
The agreements must deliver renewed public revenue, completed facilities, improved airport operations and greater certainty for future investors.
Only then will the settlement’s full economic value become evident.
The N132 billion breakthrough was not simply about the financial claim Bi-Courtney agreed to relinquish. It was about the economic opportunities Nigeria had allowed to remain entangled in an 18-year dispute—and the responsibility to ensure those opportunities are finally realised.
Anya, a Public Affairs analyst, wrote in from Lagos
Related News
Source: