‘Why Peter Obi May Not Apologise or Pay N25,000 Airport Fine’ — Lawyer Challenges Keyamo’s Directive

A Senior Partner at Justice Chambers, Ekemini Udim, has offered a legal perspective on the controversy surrounding the alleged parking violation involving the presidential candidate of the Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC), Peter Obi, arguing that the former Anambra State governor may not be legally required to apologise or pay the ₦25,000 fine demanded by the Minister of Aviation and Aerospace Development, Festus Keyamo.

The controversy followed a statement issued by Keyamo on Friday after an internal investigation into Obi’s claim that the tyres of his vehicle were unjustly clamped at the Nnamdi Azikiwe International Airport.

According to the minister, CCTV footage and findings from the investigation showed that Obi’s vehicle was left unattended in a restricted parking area after he was dropped off at the domestic terminal on July 4, 2026. He stated that airport security personnel clamped the vehicle in line with existing regulations.

Keyamo further alleged that although the vehicle was later released following communication between Obi and an airport manager, the prescribed ₦25,000 parking violation fine was not paid. Consequently, he called on Obi to publicly apologise to airport officials and return within seven days to settle the fine.

Reacting in a video shared on Facebook, Udim argued that the minister lacks the legal authority to pronounce anyone guilty or compel the payment of a fine, insisting that such powers belong exclusively to courts of competent jurisdiction.

The legal practitioner cited previous judicial decisions involving the Federal Road Safety Corps (FRSC), where both the trial court and the Court of Appeal held that the agency could not unilaterally impose fines without first obtaining a court determination of liability.

He argued that if the same legal principle applies to the Federal Airports Authority of Nigeria (FAAN), then the agency cannot independently determine guilt or enforce punitive fines without judicial backing.

Beyond that argument, Udim maintained that criminal liability is personal under Nigerian law. According to him, responsibility for an alleged offence rests solely on the individual who committed it and cannot automatically be transferred to another person.

He contended that if Obi was not the person driving and parking the vehicle at the time of the alleged violation, then holding him personally responsible for the offence would be inconsistent with the legal principle of personal criminal liability.

According to Udim, the crucial question is whether Obi personally parked the vehicle or whether the alleged infraction, if any, was committed by his driver. He maintained that unless Obi was directly responsible for the act, demanding that he personally pay the fine and issue a public apology would lack legal justification.

The airport parking dispute has generated widespread public debate, with legal and political observers offering differing interpretations of the minister’s directive and the applicable provisions of Nigerian law. Whether the matter proceeds to litigation or is resolved administratively remains to be seen.