BY OLAPEJU OLUBI
When the Federal Airports Authority of Nigeria (FAAN) activated its revised air cargo tariff on February 2, what should have been a routine regulatory adjustment quickly escalated into a noisy public showdown.
Protest placards, press statements and whispered threats painted a familiar picture: a powerful government agency accused of imposing “crippling” costs on struggling operators.
But behind the charged rhetoric lies a far less sensational—and far more consequential—reality.
Strip away the emotion, examine the numbers, the law, and the reforms already underway, and a different narrative emerges.
This is not a tale of sudden imposition. It is the story of an 18-year anomaly finally corrected, a system straining under outdated pricing, and a national infrastructure forced to choose between stagnation and sustainability.
An 18-Year Anomaly No System Can Survive
The starting point of the controversy is almost unbelievable. Since 2008, FAAN has charged just ₦7 per kilogram as port charge for air cargo—an amount that remained frozen through multiple economic cycles, currency crashes and inflation spikes.
In 2008, Nigeria’s macroeconomic reality was vastly different. Inflation has since climbed by roughly 287 per cent. The naira, then exchanging at about ₦118 to the dollar, now trades beyond ₦1,450.
The implication is stark: the cost of imported screening machines, safety equipment, ICT systems and spare parts—most of them dollar-denominated—has risen by over 1,000 per cent.
Against this backdrop, the revised international cargo port charge of ₦20 per kilogram is not the shock some have portrayed. By inflation-adjusted calculations, a ₦7 service in 2008 should cost close to ₦27 today just to maintain parity.
The new tariff therefore represents a 186 per cent increase, not the 257 per cent figure being circulated in some quarters—and still sits below the inflation-neutral benchmark.
This is not discretionary. Under its enabling laws, FAAN is required to maintain “cost-related charges” to ensure safe, secure and compliant airport operations. Continuing to charge 2008 prices in a 2026 economy is not compassion; it is institutional self-sabotage.
From Protest to Provocation
The resistance did not stop at press briefings. On the first day of 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.
What the Tariff Is Funding Right Now
Lost in the noise is a basic question: what exactly is FAAN doing with the revenue?
The answer lies in a series of tangible reforms already executed or firmly in motion under the Directorate of Cargo Development and Services (DCDS).
These are not abstract policy documents. They are projects with line items, contractors, timelines and costs.
First is governance and compliance.
For the first time, structured Standard Operating Procedures are being implemented with ground handlers, alongside Service Level Agreements with airlines and government agencies. Drafting, negotiating and enforcing these frameworks require extensive legal, technical and administrative resources—but they are foundational to efficiency and fairness in cargo operations.
Second is infrastructure reactivation.
A long-abandoned Domestic Cargo Warehouse has been fully rehabilitated and returned to operation, creating immediate new capacity for local trade. This alone required direct capital expenditure that could not have been funded on a ₦7-per-kilogram revenue model.
Third is security and verification. A comprehensive biometric access documentation system is now being rolled out for private cargo stakeholders.
Linked to regulatory bodies such as the NCAA, CRFFN and NCS, the system is designed to tighten access control and reduce fraud and unauthorised entry—an investment in both technology and skilled personnel.
Then there is strategic expansion. Designs for a dedicated Domestic Cargo Terminal at Abuja Airport—where none currently exists—have been completed, with construction planned for 2026.
This single project is expected to unlock the capital’s air trade potential and rebalance cargo flows nationally.
Planned upgrades are equally critical. Finalised proposals include the rehabilitation of the Lagos Cargo Terminal Road to tackle chronic congestion, and a dedicated cargo-terminal security personnel structure.
These respond directly to long-standing complaints from operators about access bottlenecks and safety risks.
Looking ahead, the tariff adjustment is also meant to fund future-critical systems: a digital Cargo Community System to integrate stakeholders, modern scanners to strengthen perimeter security, and a Truck Call-Up System to finally eliminate terminal gridlock.
These are the building blocks of a modern cargo ecosystem. None comes cheap.
The Consultation Question and the Politics Beneath It
Another recurring claim is that FAAN acted without consultation. The record suggests otherwise.
Since the creation of the DCDS, there have been more than six formal and informal engagements with stakeholders across the value chain: customs-licensed agents, airlines, ground handlers, terminal operators and multiple agent associations.
What complicates the picture is not silence from FAAN but fragmentation within the agent bodies themselves.
One major faction, by the Authority’s account, has consistently aligned with the need for a tariff review after 18 years.
The deeper dispute appears to revolve less around the ₦20 charge and more around internal struggles for recognition and influence.
FAAN engaged multiple groups in good faith, but it cannot indefinitely pause national reform to accommodate unresolved internal politics. As one official privately put it, “The national interest cannot be held hostage to factional disputes.”
That context also raises uncomfortable questions. Which faction is now claiming a cancelled meeting? And why do some continue to insist the tariff is ₦25 per kilogram when the move to ₦20 was “clearly, repeatedly, and transparently communicated”?
The Cost of Selective Amnesia
Perhaps the most striking contradiction in the protests is economic. Over the same 18-year period that FAAN’s port charge remained frozen, virtually every other player in the cargo value chain reviewed prices—often multiple times. Private terminal operators adjusted handling fees.
Airlines revised surcharges. Agents themselves recalibrated tariffs to survive inflation.
This leads to a fundamental question for dissenting union leaders: would their members still be in business today if they were charging clients strictly on 2008 rate cards? Or is the expectation that the Federal Government alone should operate permanently in the past?
“Business as usual” is not neutral. It has a cost: dilapidated roads, obsolete scanners, porous access control and chronic congestion that ultimately drive cargo traffic away from Nigeria.
Aligning With a Bigger Economic Vision
The tariff debate does not exist in isolation. It sits squarely within a broader national agenda.
The President has repeatedly articulated an ambition to build a trillion-dollar economy.
In the aviation sector, this has translated into a clear export-driven focus, championed by the Minister of Aviation and operationalised through FAAN’s
“Airport for Exports” agenda.
Air cargo is central to that vision. Without reliable infrastructure, secure terminals and efficient processes, Nigerian exports cannot compete globally. And without sustainable funding, those systems cannot be built or maintained.
The uncomfortable truth is that resisting the tariff adjustment risks undermining the very competitiveness stakeholders claim to defend.
A Timeline of Good Faith
The chronology matters. The tariff review was formally approved in mid-2024. It was implemented at other airports in October 2025. Lagos—by far the busiest cargo hub—was granted additional time at the request of agents to allow for further dialogue.
That pause, intended as a goodwill gesture, is now being reframed as evidence of weakness to exploit. But the facts remain: due process was followed, consultations held, and implementation staggered to minimise disruption.
Progress or Paralysis
In the end, this debate is about more than ₦20 per kilogram. It is about whether Nigeria is willing to confront uncomfortable arithmetic in order to fund modern infrastructure—or whether it will allow misinformation and intimidation to preserve an unsustainable status quo.
The choice is stark. One path leads to continued investment, improved security, smoother logistics and a cargo system capable of supporting a trillion-dollar economy. The other leads back to gridlock, decay and lost opportunity.
As one stakeholder put it, the question is simple: do we pay a modest, rational price for progress now, or a far higher price for inaction later?
Olapeju is a journalist and aviation reporter.
