By Frank Meke
CITIZENS COMPASS— To a few discerning tourism players and observers, the frequent “advisories” and “boycott” directives issued by the Aliyu Badaki-led Federation of Tourism Associations of Nigeria (FTAN) increasingly suggest that the organisation may be suffering from a serious leadership crisis.
In barely one year of its existence, the current leadership appears to have broken the industry record for being one of the most vociferous, troubled and embittered administrations, seemingly lacking a clearly defined ecosystem for resolving industry challenges, building consensus and projecting solutions that benefit its federating bodies.
Week in, week out, what appears to emanate from its stable are letters of caution, advisories and directives urging members to distance themselves from reforms and emerging regulatory frameworks that could, if properly implemented, strengthen the growth and survival of the tourism and hospitality sector.
To describe this FTAN as increasingly anti-reform and resistant to industry advancement may not be an understatement. The body sometimes behaves as though it is running a Babylonian Empire built around the power and authority of its own Nebuchadnezzar.
Within one year of this leadership, there have been numerous admonitions and red-flag directives issued to independent bodies under its supposed guidance, many of which appear to have been ignored or sidestepped by the wider industry.
FTAN has also failed, in my view, to justify the confidence reposed in it by some industry stakeholders. Its repeated directives appear to reflect inadequate risk assessment and insufficient consideration of the wider consequences of grandstanding in an industry desperately seeking order, stability and sustainable investment.
The frequency and tone of FTAN’s interventions increasingly smack of a leadership trapped in anxiety and decision fatigue. Its extreme warnings to members raise serious questions about whether the organisation is adequately embracing the principles of consultation, negotiation, democracy and freedom of expression that should define an industry umbrella body.
Let us situate this within the current debate surrounding the strategic implementation of the National Institute for Hospitality and Tourism (NIHOTOUR) Act of 2022.
Initially, FTAN opposed the implementation of the Act, citing policy gaps and, particularly, areas of overlapping mandates between NIHOTOUR and the Nigeria Tourism Development Authority Act.
In its confrontational posture, FTAN argued that the regulatory arrangements surrounding the two institutions should effectively be discarded. Yet, it offered no compelling alternative framework and, importantly, did not appear to sufficiently consult the federating bodies whose interests it purportedly represented.
When that approach failed to gain the desired traction, FTAN appeared to turn inward, searching for explanations and scapegoats for what could arguably be described as a lack of vision and innovation.
The situation eventually led to an engagement with the Honourable Minister responsible for Culture and Tourism, where an industry sub-leadership convened a peace meeting aimed at resolving the disagreement surrounding NIHOTOUR.
“Peace, who will give us peace?” was the title of a piece I subsequently wrote following that meeting.
Shortly after, and apparently in a renewed attempt to resolve the outstanding issues and move the industry forward, a stakeholders’ meeting was organised in Abuja with the express approval of the Honourable Minister and the Federal Government. The objective was to address concerns surrounding the NIHOTOUR Act and provide stakeholders with an opportunity to speak frankly.
However, FTAN reportedly declined to participate.
That decision, in my assessment, further reinforced the perception of an organisation increasingly reluctant to engage when the conversation requires open dialogue and compromise.
Interestingly, the same stakeholders’ meeting attracted key players and leading voices across the tourism and hospitality industry. Participants openly commended NIHOTOUR for its accessibility, willingness to engage and responsiveness to issues that had previously been misunderstood or inadequately explained.
FTAN’s numerous letters of caution and boycott directives to federating members and stakeholders have consequently created the impression of an organisation lacking the negotiation skills and institutional structures required to effectively manage disputes—whether involving government regulation, private-sector operators or industry associations.
The NIHOTOUR stakeholders’ engagement, which was attended by representatives of the Minister and other important sectoral bodies, also exposed what appeared to be an FTAN leadership increasingly uncomfortable with new challenges and, perhaps, gradually becoming isolated from members who may not necessarily share its confrontational approach towards government.
One significant outcome of the stakeholders’ engagement was the constitution of a national committee on the recognition and governance of industry professional bodies, chaired by Prof. Wasui Babalola, a professor of Hotel Management and Tourism, lawyer and forensic accountant.
The Babalola Committee subsequently called on industry players, investors and associations to submit position papers to assist it in carrying out its mandate and developing recommendations capable of strengthening professional governance within the sector.
That development appears to have generated considerable concern within the FTAN camp.
FTAN has often argued that the industry requires systemic reform while, paradoxically, resisting aspects of the operational ecosystem designed to facilitate such reform. This contradiction raises a fundamental question: Is FTAN genuinely opposed to reform, or is it opposed to the process and individuals driving the reform?
There is also the question of why FTAN appears uncomfortable with one of its own—Prof. Wasui Babalola—playing a central role in a process aimed at strengthening governance of tourism professional bodies.
If the federation has reservations about the committee or its leadership, the more constructive approach would be to present credible alternatives, engage with the committee and provide robust recommendations capable of improving the sector.
Instead, its latest “cautionary” interventions appear to suggest an organisation increasingly disconnected from the choices being made by its own members, many of whom seem prepared to independently determine what is in their best interest.
While FTAN has yet to fully subject its positions on these issues to the level of public scrutiny expected of an industry umbrella body, NIHOTOUR has repeatedly maintained that it is a creation of a government established to serve Nigerian hospitality and tourism operators.
At various engagements, NIHOTOUR has defended the law establishing it and explained its mandate and expected deliverables within the framework of its enabling legislation.
In contrast, FTAN’s leadership has continued to avoid sustained public and media scrutiny of its position on these matters.
The organised tourism media has, on several occasions, sought clarification from the Director-General of NIHOTOUR on contentious issues, and the institution has generally made itself available to explain its position.
But when similar questions are directed at FTAN, a wall of silence appears to surround the organisation.
This leaves the industry with several unanswered questions.
What exactly is FTAN’s major concern with NIHOTOUR—the institution itself, the implementation of its enabling law, or the personality of its Director-General, Dr. Abisoye Fagade?
And perhaps more importantly, why does FTAN appear uncomfortable with Prof. Wasui Babalola’s leadership of the committee on professional bodies’ recognition and governance?
These are legitimate questions that an industry leadership committed to transparency, accountability and collective progress should be willing to answer.
The tourism and hospitality industry does not need perpetual confrontation. It needs leadership capable of negotiation, consensus-building, evidence-based advocacy and constructive engagement with government and other stakeholders.
FTAN must therefore decide whether it wants to remain trapped in a cycle of advisories, cautions and boycott threats or reposition itself as a credible, inclusive and solution-driven umbrella body capable of leading the industry into its next phase of growth.
The industry deserves better than endless warnings. It deserves solutions.
