Dr Bolanle Olawale “Wale” Babalakin, SAN, is closely linked to one of the most important airport concession stories in Nigeria’s modern history, the Murtala Muhammed Airport Terminal Two in Lagos, widely known as MMA2.
Through Bi-Courtney Aviation Services Limited, Babalakin became associated with a privately financed airport terminal that was meant to show how private capital could help rebuild and modernise Nigeria’s public infrastructure. What followed made MMA2 more than a terminal. It became a long-running test of contract enforcement, government continuity and investor confidence.
The Fire That Led to a New Terminal
The story began after the old domestic terminal at Murtala Muhammed Airport, Lagos, was destroyed by fire. The Federal Government needed a replacement for one of the country’s busiest domestic aviation facilities, but the project eventually moved through a public-private partnership structure rather than a normal government-only funding arrangement.
In 2003, Bi-Courtney was awarded the concession by the Federal Government to develop, finance, manage and operate Murtala Muhammed Airport Terminal Two and related assets under a Design-Build-Operate-Transfer arrangement. The concession covered the terminal building, apron, multi-storey car park, hotel and conference centre.
This made MMA2 one of Nigeria’s most prominent privately financed airport terminal projects. Its importance was not only in its design or passenger facilities, but in the fact that a private Nigerian company was expected to finance, build and operate a major public aviation asset under an agreement with the government.
EXPLORE NOW: Military Era & Coups in Nigeria
MMA2 Opens in Lagos
MMA2 began flight operations in May 2007. Its opening marked a major moment in Nigerian aviation because it showed that private capital could deliver a functioning airport terminal within the country’s public infrastructure system.
For travellers, MMA2 became known as a major domestic terminal in Lagos. For policymakers and investors, it became a practical test of how Nigeria would handle large concession agreements after construction was completed.
The terminal’s opening did not end the story. Instead, it marked the beginning of a deeper disagreement between Bi-Courtney and government aviation authorities over the meaning and implementation of the concession.
The Dispute Behind the Terminal
The long dispute was a legal and contractual conflict over what the concession agreement meant and how it should be enforced.
The major issues included the length of the concession, exclusivity rights, control of the General Aviation Terminal, also known as GAT or MMA1, competing domestic operations in Lagos, related assets and court-backed financial claims.
Bi-Courtney argued that the concession gave it rights that were not fully respected by government agencies. FAAN and other public authorities disputed parts of that interpretation at different times. This disagreement turned MMA2 into one of Nigeria’s most closely watched public-private partnership cases.
The 36-Year Concession Question
One of the most important issues was the duration of the concession. Bi-Courtney maintained that the concession was for 36 years from 7 May 2007. FAAN and some public officials had previously disputed that position, with earlier arguments suggesting a shorter period.
Legal reporting later supported the position that the concession agreement provided for a 36-year term beginning from 7 May 2007. This made the concession period one of the central legal points in the dispute.
The question mattered because airport concessions depend on time. A private investor that finances a major terminal needs enough years of operation to recover its investment and make the project commercially viable. If the operating period is shortened or contested, the financial foundation of the concession becomes unstable.
The General Aviation Terminal Issue
Another major area of disagreement was the General Aviation Terminal, commonly called GAT or MMA1. Bi-Courtney’s position was that GAT formed part of the concession framework or affected the commercial rights granted under the MMA2 agreement.
This mattered because passenger traffic and revenue were central to the value of the concession. If scheduled domestic flights continued to operate from competing facilities in Lagos, Bi-Courtney argued that the commercial promise of MMA2 was being weakened.
For government agencies, the issue involved control of airport operations and how domestic aviation traffic should be managed. For Bi-Courtney, it was about whether the concession rights it believed it had secured were being honoured.
The N132 Billion Judgment Debt
Over the years, the dispute produced major court decisions and financial claims. One of the most widely reported outcomes was a judgment debt of ₦132 billion, including accrued interest dating from 2009.
That figure became a symbol of how expensive public-private partnership disputes can become when they remain unresolved for years. It also showed the risks faced by investors when infrastructure contracts become trapped between court rulings, agency resistance and political changes.
For almost two decades, MMA2 remained in operation while the dispute around it continued. The terminal itself stood as evidence that private capital could deliver infrastructure, but the legal battle around it showed how difficult it could be to protect such investments in practice.
The 2026 Settlement
In April 2026, the Federal Government announced a settlement with Bi-Courtney Aviation Services Limited after a Federal Executive Council meeting.
Under the reported settlement, Bi-Courtney agreed to write off the ₦132 billion judgment debt, including interest. Reports also stated that the company agreed to drop some exclusivity claims and return MMA1 to federal government control.
In return, the Federal Government restored the stalled hotel and conference centre concession opposite MMA2 to Bi-Courtney, although not on an exclusive basis. The settlement also allowed regional flight operations to be moved to MMA2.
The agreement brought a practical resolution to a dispute that had lasted about 20 years. It reduced the government’s financial exposure and gave Bi-Courtney a renewed path on parts of the broader concession arrangement.
EXPLORE NOW: Biographies & Cultural Icons of Nigeria
Why MMA2 Matters in Nigerian History
MMA2 matters because it shows both the promise and the limits of Nigeria’s infrastructure system.
The terminal demonstrated that private investment could deliver major public infrastructure. At the same time, the long dispute showed that infrastructure success depends on clear agreements, consistent government action and strong institutions that can sustain long-term commitments.
The MMA2 case became a defining example of how public-private partnerships function in Nigeria’s aviation sector.
Wale Babalakin’s Place in the MMA2 Story
Wale Babalakin’s role in this history is tied to Bi-Courtney’s development and operation of MMA2. The project placed him at the centre of one of Nigeria’s most significant airport concession cases.
MMA2 remains one of Nigeria’s most prominent privately financed airport terminals and a lasting example of the opportunities and challenges of infrastructure concessions in the country.
Author’s Note
The MMA2 story reflects how infrastructure development depends not only on construction, but on trust, continuity and respect for agreements. It shows that private investment can help build national assets, but lasting progress comes when institutions remain consistent and commitments are honoured over time.
References
Punch, “FG, Bi-Courtney Resolve 20-Year MM2 Dispute,” April 2026.
MMA2 Corporate Services, “About MMA2.”
TheCable, “Regional Flights Moved to MM2 as FG Settles 20-Year Dispute with Bi-Courtney,” 2026.
The Guardian Nigeria, “Bi-Courtney Insists on 36-Year Concession Tenure of MMA2,” 2019.
Tribune Online, “FAAN v. Bi-Courtney, The Lagos Airport Concession Agreement,” 2025.
BusinessDay, “We Have a Valid 36-Year Concession on MMA2, Bi-Courtney,” 2019.
