Tension is brewing in the country’s aviation industry again over who has the legal right to continue to be in charge of revenue collection for the Federal Airports Authority of Nigeria (FAAN).

FAAN had, on October 31, 2007, entered into a concession agreement with Maevis Limited for the acquisition, installation, operation and management of an Integrated Airport Operation Management System (AOMS), Common User Self Service System (CUSS), Flight Information Display System (FIDS), Airport Pricing and Billing System, a proactive revenue management system and an electronic payment gateway system.

The agreement covered the nation’s four major airports, namely: Murtala Muhammed International Airport, Ikeja; Nnamdi Azikiwe International Airport, Abuja; Port-Harcourt International Airport, Port-Harcourt and the Mallam Aminu Kano International Airport, Kano.

The agreement specified that Maevis was to solely fund the project at a total cost of N3, 959,293,695.97. The agreement was for a period of 10 years in the first instance subject to a renewal term of five years, based on satisfactory performance and on terms and conditions to be agreed upon by the parties at the time.

By the agreement, FAAN was to pay Maevis two per cent of the base revenue collected and where revenue collected exceeded FAAN’s projected base revenue (as contained in Schedule 3 of the annexure to the agreement in any year), 35 per cent of that additional revenue.

FAAN, however, gave SITA all the necessary backing to continue from where Maevis stopped, a situation which made the Nigerian firm to challenge the illegal take- over of its function by SITA.

FAAN’s decision to award the contract to SITA, according to Maevis, had led to its inability to collect revenue due to the Federal Government of Nigeria pursuant to the facilities it provided under the agreement.

Respite, however, came the way of Maevis on Monday, when Justice Buba’s judgement did not only order SITA to vacate FAAN premises for Maevis, but to also pay N5 billion as general damages for inducing the government organisation to breach the subsisting agreement with the Maevis.

Post a Comment