Listen to the article
The standoff between the Federal Airports Authority of Nigeria (FAAN) and cargo agents has intensified beyond a simple pricing dispute into a complex conflict involving accusations of misinformation and attempts to derail national reforms in the aviation sector.
As of February 4, 2026, operations at Lagos’ Murtala Muhammed Airport are being disrupted by agents’ industrial action while FAAN maintains a firm stance on new tariff implementation. Behind the heated rhetoric lies a more nuanced situation rooted in long-overdue economic adjustments.
At the core of the dispute is FAAN’s first tariff adjustment in 18 years. Since 2008, the authority has charged N7 per kilogram for airport infrastructure usage, despite Nigeria experiencing approximately 287% inflation during this period and the naira depreciating from roughly ₦118/$1 to over ₦1,450/$1—representing a staggering 1,000% increase in the cost of imported safety equipment.
The new international port charge of N20 per kg represents a 186% increase, not the 257% figure being circulated by opponents. Economic analysts note this figure actually remains below inflation-adjusted parity, which would place the rate closer to N27 based on official economic indicators. The adjustment aligns with FAAN’s statutory obligations to maintain financially sustainable operations.
Tensions escalated dramatically on implementation day when a faction of agents reportedly attempted to physically disrupt operations by intimidating colleagues who were complying with the new tariff. This incident prompted swift intervention from FAAN security and the Nigerian Customs Service to maintain order at the terminals. The authority has filed formal reports regarding these disruptions with relevant security agencies.
Further complicating matters, some representatives allegedly spread false information that FAAN had reversed its decision, creating confusion among stakeholders and the media. FAAN has explicitly denied any policy reversal and encouraged compliant agents to continue their lawful operations.
The authority maintains that the tariff adjustment is critical for funding ongoing modernization efforts already underway through its Directorate of Cargo Development & Services (DCDS). These initiatives include governance and compliance improvements, infrastructure rehabilitation, enhanced security systems, and strategic expansion projects.
Notable completed projects include the rehabilitation of a previously abandoned Domestic Cargo Warehouse, implementation of a biometric access system for cargo stakeholders, and finalized designs for a new Domestic Cargo Terminal at Abuja Airport. Planned upgrades include the Lagos Cargo Terminal Road rehabilitation and development of a digital Cargo Community System.
Aviation industry analyst Chinedu Okafor noted: “This tariff adjustment reflects economic reality rather than arbitrary pricing. When agents themselves have adjusted their own fees multiple times during this same period, the expectation that a government agency should maintain 2008 pricing levels despite dramatic economic shifts appears inconsistent.”
FAAN contends that claims of insufficient consultation misrepresent the process. Officials report holding more than six formal and informal meetings with various stakeholder groups—including customs licensed agents, airlines, ground handlers, and terminal operators—despite acknowledged internal divisions within agent associations.
Some industry insiders suggest the resistance stems partially from internal power struggles among agent associations rather than the economic merits of the adjustment itself. One faction reportedly agreed to the necessity of the increase, while others continue to oppose it.
The dispute occurs against the backdrop of Nigeria’s broader economic ambitions. The federal government has prioritized building a trillion-dollar economy, with the Minister of Aviation establishing the DCDS specifically to boost exports via air transportation—a mission championed by FAAN’s Managing Director through the “Airport for Exports” agenda.
According to transport economist Dr. Amina Lawal: “Without sustainable funding mechanisms, critical infrastructure upgrades will stall, undermining Nigeria’s competitiveness in global air cargo. The modest port charge represents an investment in future capacity and efficiency.”
The timeline shows FAAN’s attempts at accommodation—the tariff was formally approved in mid-2024, implemented elsewhere in October 2025, and temporarily paused in Lagos for additional dialogue at agents’ request before the current implementation.
As the situation unfolds, the broader aviation community watches closely to see whether pragmatism and the national interest will prevail in modernizing Nigeria’s vital air cargo infrastructure or if the dispute will continue to disrupt operations at one of West Africa’s busiest air freight hubs.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
6 Comments
This cargo fee dispute highlights the delicate balance between infrastructure needs, cost pressures, and public concerns. While economic realities may justify some price adjustments, clear communication and stakeholder engagement will be crucial to find a workable solution.
An 18-year freeze on tariffs is quite remarkable, even with high inflation. The authority likely needs to make some increases to keep up with rising costs and ensure continued airport operations. But the scale of the hike is important to assess carefully.
This cargo fee dispute seems to be a complex issue with valid concerns on both sides. While the new tariff may seem high, the authority needs to account for soaring costs and economic realities. Hopefully a fair compromise can be reached to keep the sector functioning smoothly.
It’s concerning to hear about the misinformation campaign around the cargo fee hike. Accurate data and transparent discussions are crucial for navigating these infrastructure challenges. I hope all parties can move past the rhetoric and find a pragmatic solution.
I agree, cutting through the noise and focusing on the facts is key. Reasonable price adjustments may be necessary, but they need to be clearly communicated and justified.
Interesting to see the nuanced factors at play here beyond just the headline numbers. It’s a complex issue where both sides seem to have legitimate concerns. I hope they can find common ground through open and constructive dialogue.