Maevis Asks FAAN to Account for N42bn

Minister of Aviation, Mrs Stella Oduah
The tussle for the control of commercial operations and operating system at the Lagos and Abuja international airports took a new turn Tuesday as Maevis Nigeria Limited challenged the Federal Airports Authority of Nigeria (FAAN) to account for N42 billion revenue remitted to it between August 2008 and January 2012.

The private firm said the demand for accountability had become necessary given the insinuations by FAAN that Maevis was collecting 37 per cent of funds accruing to the government at the airports.

Executive Director, Maevis Nigeria Limited, Mrs Olatokunbo Fagbemi, made the position of her organisation known when she appeared before the House of Representatives Committee on Treaty and Agreement.

The committee had invited the two parties in dispute to a meeting to mediate in the crisis but FAAN did not honour the invitation.

A letter from the Minister of Aviation, Mrs Stella Oduah, addressed to the House Committee said that FAAN officials were unable to attend the meeting because they were engaged in managing a looming industrial action at the airports.

Oduah also said the dispute between Maevis and FAAN was already before the House Committee on Aviation.

In a presentation at the meeting, Fagbemi told the lawmakers that Maevis had a valid contract to manage the Lagos, Abuja, Kano and Port Harcourt airports for 10 years on the basis of a Build Own Operate and Transfer Agreement.

According to her, the agreement was geared towards building a world-class integrated airports operations management system; a pricing and billing system; revenue management system and electronic payment gateway, among other services.

She denied allegations that her company breached certain aspects of its agreement with FAAN and said that rather, it was FAAN that was frustrating the contract both organisations signed in respect of four airports in the country.

Fagbemi said that contrary to the allegations in the media, Maevis had followed the agreement religiously and had paid all revenues accruing to government to FAAN accounts in designated banks.

She explained that midway into the execution of the agreement, FAAN forcibly disrupted its operations and installed another company to carry out the same services that Maevis was rendering.

She described the action of FAAN as brazen lawlessness, adding that the agreement was being truncated in spite of court rulings to the contrary as well as ongoing arbitration processes.

Chairman, House Committee on Treaty and Agreement, Hon. Yacoub Alebiosu, said the committee would study the petition submitted to it by Maevis when both parties had been given fair hearings.

Alebiosu, however, said that the committee would fully wade into the issue in collaboration with the House Committee on Aviation.

Justice Binta Murtala Nyako of the Federal High Court in Lagos had ruled last year that FAAN had no right to terminate Maevis’ Airport Operations Management Services (AOMS) contract.

The judge had in an earlier order of December 17, 2010 referred parties in the conflict to arbitration, since the agreement between them provided for it in the event of a dispute.

The management of Maevis had approached the court for relief then, when it complained that its rights as contained in the agreement were being infringed upon.

Maevis has an agreement with FAAN to provide the airport operations management system. The agreement was entered into in October 2007 by both parties under the PPP arrangement which would last for 10 years.

In a twist to the conflict after the initial ruling, FAAN had in a letter dated March 24, 2011, served a two-month termination notice to Maevis.

On receipt of the termination notice, Maevis headed to the court for relief, claiming that the purported termination letter was a clear disregard for the High Court ruling.

Counsel to Maevis, Prof. Yemi Osibanjo (SAN), had in his address reminded the court that the preservative order the court made on September 24, 2010 and December 17, 2010 had asked both parties to maintain the status quo and go to arbitration in line with Article 15 of the agreement between FAAN and Maevis.

He therefore stated that FAAN’s conduct in sending the termination letter was a contemptuous act and should be made to answer to the court.