Court rules against former FAAN directors in tenure dispute

The National Industrial Court has dismissed a lawsuit filed by three former directors of the Federal Airport Authority of Nigeria (FAAN) who challenged their removal from office before the end of a supposed five-year term.

In a judgment delivered on March 6, 2026, Justice E. D. Subilim ruled that the claimants: Yakubu Abdullahi Funtua, Azubuike Okorie, and Shehu D. Muhammad, were not entitled to reinstatement or compensation because their appointments lacked “statutory flavour.”

Read also: Industrial court orders firms to pay N4.09m in salary arrears, damages

The core of the dispute
The three directors were appointed in May 2023, just days before the end of the previous federal administration.

Their appointment letters stated they were to serve a five-year term.

However, in December 2023, they were relieved of their duties following a ministry circular.

The former directors approached the court seeking:

A declaration that their five-year tenure was protected by law.

Reinstatement to their positions.

Alternatively, a payment of N251.3 million, representing their salaries for the remaining 53 months of their tenure.

Read also: Lagos High Court rules in favour of IRS airlines in aircraft insurance case

The Court’s findings

While the defendants argued the case was filed too late, the judge confirmed the lawsuit was validly submitted within the three-month window required for actions against public officers.

However, the case ultimately failed on the definition of the employment type. The judge identified three categories of employment in Nigeria:

Master-servant: Governed strictly by a contract.

‘At the pleasure of the employer’: High-level appointments that can be concluded at any time.

Statutory flavour: Where the law specifically dictates how someone is hired and fired.

Why the claim failed
The court found that although FAAN is a body created by law, the specific position of “Director” with a fixed five-year term is not mentioned in the FAAN Act of 2022.

According to the Judge,

“The Minister… cannot, by mere administrative fiat or inclusion in an appointment letter, unilaterally create a statutory tenure… without explicit statutory backing”.

Because the five-year term was not written into the actual law governing the agency, the court ruled that the directors served at the “pleasure of the President.”

This meant the government had the legal right to remove them without proving misconduct or completing the five years mentioned in their letters.

Final verdict
The court refused all requests for reinstatement and financial damages, concluding that the case lacked merit. No costs were awarded against the former directors.