Airport row: Keyamo gives Obi seven-day ultimatum to apologise

A recent public ultimatum issued by Festus Keyamo to Peter Obi, demanding an apology and a N25,000 payment for alleged airport parking violations, has ignited discussions among legal professionals regarding the proper channels for addressing minor regulatory infractions in Nigeria. This incident highlights critical questions concerning the legal standing of private citizens to demand fines, the jurisdiction for enforcing airport regulations, and the appropriate judicial or administrative recourse for such alleged breaches. The article delves into the statutory framework governing airport operations, the limitations on private enforcement, and the constitutional prerogative of courts to impose penalties, offering a nuanced perspective on the legal implications of extra-judicial demands for redress.

The recent public demand by Festus Keyamo, a prominent legal practitioner, for an apology and a N25,000 payment from Peter Obi, a former presidential candidate, over alleged airport parking violations, has brought to the fore significant legal questions concerning the enforcement of regulatory compliance in Nigeria. This highly publicised incident, stemming from a purported breach of airport parking rules, transcends mere personal dispute, prompting a critical examination of the legal framework governing such infractions and the appropriate avenues for seeking redress. For practising attorneys, the episode serves as a pertinent case study on the boundaries of private enforcement, the nature of 'fines' demanded by individuals, and the procedural prerequisites for initiating legal action in Nigeria.

The management and regulation of airports in Nigeria fall primarily under the purview of the Federal Airports Authority of Nigeria (FAAN), a corporate body established by the Federal Airports Authority of Nigeria Act, Cap. F5, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004 (and subsequently the Federal Airports Authority of Nigeria Act, 2022). This Act empowers FAAN to manage and maintain airports, provide necessary services and facilities, and crucially, to make bye-laws for regulating vehicular traffic, imposing speed limits, and restricting or regulating parking within airport premises. These bye-laws are intended to ensure the safety, security, and orderly operation of air transport and airport facilities. Alleged breaches of these regulations would typically fall within FAAN's enforcement mandate, often leading to administrative penalties or, in more serious cases, prosecution by the relevant authorities. The concept of a 'fine' in Nigerian jurisprudence is generally understood as a monetary penalty imposed by a court of law or a tribunal established by law, following a finding of guilt for an offence. Section 6 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) vests judicial powers in the courts, implying that the power to impose fines as a form of punishment is primarily a judicial function. While some regulatory agencies are statutorily empowered to impose civil penalties, such powers are often subject to judicial review and must adhere strictly to principles of fair hearing and due process, as affirmed in various judicial decisions.

The demand by a private citizen for an apology and a 'fine' of N25,000 for an alleged airport parking violation raises fundamental questions about legal standing and the proper exercise of enforcement powers. Firstly, the authority to impose fines for regulatory breaches, such as parking violations at airports, rests squarely with the statutory body responsible for the regulation, in this case, FAAN, or a competent court of law. A private individual, regardless of their legal background, does not possess the inherent power to unilaterally impose a fine on another citizen for a perceived infraction of public regulations. Such an action could be seen as an attempt to usurp judicial functions, which are constitutionally reserved for the courts. While a private citizen can initiate a civil action for damages if they have personally suffered harm (e.g., trespass to land if the parking was on their private property within the airport, or actual damage caused by the parking), the demand for a 'fine' is distinct from a claim for damages. Trespass to land is actionable per se, meaning no proof of actual damage is required, but the action must be brought by the person in immediate and exclusive possession of the land. In the context of an airport, FAAN would typically be the entity with the requisite possession to bring such a claim. Secondly, if the alleged parking violation constitutes a breach of FAAN's bye-laws, the appropriate recourse would be for FAAN to enforce its regulations, which may include issuing tickets, towing vehicles, or initiating prosecution through the proper channels. The Federal Airports Authority of Nigeria Act grants FAAN the power to make bye-laws for regulating vehicular traffic and restricting parking. These bye-laws would typically specify the penalties for non-compliance and the procedure for their enforcement. Thirdly, while private prosecution is permissible in Nigeria under the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015, particularly in some states, and recent Supreme Court decisions have relaxed the requirement for an Attorney-General's fiat in certain circumstances, this avenue is generally reserved for criminal offences. A minor parking violation is typically a regulatory or civil matter, not a criminal one that would warrant private prosecution. Even if it were deemed a minor criminal offence, the procedure for private prosecution is stringent and requires adherence to specific statutory provisions, including the laying of a formal complaint before a court. Lastly, should Mr. Keyamo wish to pursue a civil claim for any personal harm suffered, he would be subject to the pre-action protocols mandated by the civil procedure rules in many Nigerian jurisdictions, such as Lagos State. These protocols require parties to explore amicable settlement before resorting to litigation, and non-compliance can be fatal to a suit. The public ultimatum, without clear articulation of a personal injury or a proper legal basis for demanding a 'fine', deviates significantly from established legal procedures for dispute resolution and regulatory enforcement.

The public ultimatum issued by Festus Keyamo to Peter Obi serves as a crucial reminder for legal practitioners and the general public alike regarding the proper mechanisms for addressing alleged regulatory breaches in Nigeria. It underscores that the power to impose fines for infractions of public regulations is a judicial prerogative, or in specific cases, a statutorily delegated power to administrative bodies, and not within the ambit of private citizens. Practitioners should advise clients against extra-judicial demands for 'fines' by individuals, emphasizing that such actions lack legal basis and can be counterproductive. Instead, recourse must be sought through the established legal and administrative channels, such as reporting to the relevant regulatory authority (e.g., FAAN) or initiating a civil action for damages where a clear personal injury can be demonstrated, strictly adhering to pre-action protocols. The incident highlights the importance of understanding jurisdictional boundaries and the constitutional separation of powers in the enforcement of laws and regulations. Legal professionals should continue to monitor how such public demands are addressed, as they contribute to the ongoing discourse on the rule of law and the appropriate exercise of legal rights in Nigeria.