A fresh crisis is brewing between the Federal Airports Authority of Nigeria (FAAN) and freight forwarders operating with the industry.
The bone of contention is the Authority’s recent decision to jack up cargo charges from N7 to N20 per kilogramme at Murtala Muhammed International Airport, Lagos, effective February 2.
The other party is resisting, calling the action sheer predation and exploring various strategies to have FAAN rescind its decision.
With the relationship between both parties deteriorating, external publics are worried and calling for a quick resolution of the face-off.
Nonetheless, FAAN said the decision to break the 18-year tariff freeze was born out of necessity.
FAAN has asked the agitating freight forwarders to strip away the emotion, examine the numbers, the law and the reforms already underway and see the goodness that lies ahead.
The authority said it is trying to correct an 18-year anomaly, especially as the system was straining under outdated pricing and a national infrastructure forced to choose between stagnation and sustainability.
FAAN added that the new tariff would help raise funds to develop airport infrastructure but freight forwarders have opposed the move.
At a news conference in Lagos, Mr. Temitope Akindele and Dr. Segun Musa, who spoke on behalf of the National Association of Government Approved Freight Forwarders (NAGAFF), Association of Nigerian Licensed Customs Agents (ANLCA), Africa Association of Professional Freight Forwarders and Logistics (APFFLON), and National Association of Freight Forwarders and Consolidators (NAFFAC), said the new cost is prohibitive and will affect their businesses. They stated that in 2005 when FAAN demolished their facilities, they were left without a working space for many years, however, tensions eased in 2010 when both parties negotiated an increase in cargo charges from N2 to N7 per kilogram, which was tied to land allocation for operational facilities.
The freight forwarders stated that the increase to N20 per kilogram violates both precedent and fairness and that federal guidelines usually limit tariff reviews to about 25 percent, while the new increase, which they calculated at roughly 185 percent, threatens the viability of cargo operations.
Musa accused FAAN of failing to consult stakeholders before implementing the policy and warned that multiple existing charges from airlines, handling companies and other agencies already stretch cargo operators and importers.
However, FAAN has defended the increase, stating that the adjustment is overdue, because according to them, cargo charges have remained stagnant for nearly two decades despite soaring inflation, currency depreciation and escalating security and infrastructure costs. They said if they were to maintain the real value of the 2008 tariff, it would place current charges closer to N27 per kilogram, meaning the new N20 rate still falls below inflation-adjusted realities.
They further insist that the revised charges are crucial to funding the reforms across Nigeria’s cargo airports which include rehabilitation of dormant cargo warehouses, introduction of biometric access systems, development of new cargo terminals and planned infrastructure upgrades designed to ease congestion and enhance security. Without such revenue streams, they warn that Nigeria risks falling further behind its contemporaries in terms of trade competitiveness.
However, freight forwarders insist they were excluded from meaningful engagement, while FAAN maintains that several meetings were held with industry stakeholders and that disagreements may reflect internal divisions within freight forwarding unions themselves. Freight forwarders also argue that FAAN only functions as landlords and should deal directly with concessionaires rather than agents who receive limited direct services but FAAN says the cargo ecosystem is a shared operational environment where all participants benefit from infrastructure, security and regulatory oversight funded through user charges. Freight operators on its part warn that higher cargo charges could ultimately be transferred to importers, exporters and consumers, which would in turn increase the cost of goods.
FAAN also noted that the resistance from freight forwarders did not stop at press briefings.
The Authority recalled that on the first day of the new tariff implementation, a faction of cargo agents allegedly crossed a dangerous line.
Rather than directing their grievances through formal channels, they attempted to physically disrupt operations at a major cargo terminal.
Their actions were not aimed at FAAN officials but at fellow agents who had chosen to comply with the new, legally approved tariff. By trying to block and intimidate colleagues from conducting lawful business, the agitators introduced an unacceptable security risk into a sensitive aviation environment.
Security operatives from FAAN and the Nigerian Customs Service (NCS) intervened swiftly, preventing escalation. The incident, described by officials as a deliberate attempt to “threaten safety, security and order,” has since been formally reported for further action. The message from authorities was blunt: airports are critical national assets, not arenas for industrial intimidation.
Even more troubling was the subsequent attempt to mislead the public. Sections of the media were reportedly told, falsely, that FAAN had cancelled the tariff adjustment. No such decision followed due process, and no competent authority announced any reversal. The move appeared designed to sow confusion, pressure compliant operators and force a retreat through misinformation.
However, stakeholders, however, suggest that the implementation of the new tariff should be done in phases and should be tied to measurable infrastructure delivery which they say could help bridge the trust deficit. They say there has to be transparent disclosure of how revenue from the new charges is utilised which reassure stakeholders that increases would translate to visible improvements.
