ICAO Expects Improved Funding Of Nigeria’s Safety Oversight Authority, Says NCAA DG

The Director General of Civil Aviation, Nigeria Civil Aviation Authority (NCAA), Capt. Chris Najomo says “ICAO has identified the adequacy or lack thereof, of financial resources available to Nigeria’s safety oversight authority as an area requiring improvement. It is therefore respectfully submitted that reducing the Authority’s principal statutory source of funding at this time would amount to legislating against the very deficiency that ICAO has identified for corrective action.”

In his address yesterday at the House of Representatives Aviation Committee Public Hearing on the proposed review of the allocation of the 5% Ticket Sales Charge (TSC) and Cargo Sales Charge (CSC) at National Assembly in Abuja, Najomo said “this concern is not unique to Nigeria. In developing the recent 2026–2028 Global Aviation Safety Plan (ICAO Doc 10004), ICAO analyzed the safety oversight performance of States worldwide and identified five global organizational challenges. ICAO expressly states that these challenges are “considered of the utmost priority” because they directly impact States’ safety oversight and safety management capabilities and, consequently, aviation safety at the global level. Significantly, the very first global organizational challenge identified by ICAO is the “lack of sufficient financial resources for the safety oversight authority to meet its national and international obligations.”

The second is the “lack of qualified technical personnel.” These are precisely the challenges confronting the NCAA today. ICAO’s analysis further revealed that the global Effective Implementation (EI) score for Protocol Question (PQ) 2.051, which assesses whether a State has established a mechanism to ensure that its Safety Oversight Authority has sufficient financial resources to meet its national and international obligations, was only 67.57%. ICAO considered this level of performance unsatisfactory and identified it as a global organizational challenge requiring urgent improvement.

Consequently, under Goal 2 of the Global Aviation Safety Plan, ICAO now calls upon all States to strengthen the financial capacity of their Safety Oversight Authorities. Specifically, Target 2.1 requires States to allocate sufficient financial resources to their Safety Oversight Authorities to meet their national and international obligations, with at least 70% of States expected to attain a satisfactory rating by 2028. Against this background, Nigeria’s own score of only 50% in this same critical area clearly demonstrates that the financial capacity of the NCAA requires strengthening rather than further reduction.

If ICAO considers a global Effective Implementation score of 67.57% to be inadequate and deserving of urgent international attention, then Nigeria’s score of only 50 per cent should be of even greater concern to this distinguished Committee. Honourable Members, the NCAA is already confronting these very challenges. The Authority is increasingly losing its highly qualified technical personnel to airlines, maintenance organizations, aircraft manufacturers, foreign civil aviation authorities and other organizations who offer significantly better remuneration and conditions of service. Although the Authority’s Conditions of Service were recently reviewed, the proposal eventually approved was substantially reduced from what had been recommended, and full implementation has itself been constrained by inadequate funding.

Consequently, the Authority continues to experience serious difficulties in recruiting and retaining the technical personnel required to effectively discharge Nigeria’s safety oversight responsibilities in accordance with ICAO requirements. Distinguished Members, effective regulation requires that the technical competence of the regulator remains at least commensurate with that of the organizations it regulates.

As aircraft technology, advanced avionics, digital systems, cybersecurity, continuing airworthiness requirements and modern operational practices continue to evolve, the NCAA must continuously invest in the specialized training and recurrent qualification of its inspectors. Such training is not discretionary; it is an essential requirement for maintaining an effective State Safety Oversight System in accordance with ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices.

These financial constraints have also affected other critical oversight activities. Inspector Duty Tour Allowances remain outstanding in many cases, while surveillance activities, certification programmes, recurrent inspector training and other statutory oversight functions are increasingly constrained by limited funding. Distinguished Members, aircraft do not inspect themselves. Airlines do not regulate themselves. “

Najomo said the presentation is not about “whether NAMA deserves adequate funding; as it certainly does. Rather, it is about ensuring that the funding of Nigeria’s aviation institutions remains consistent with international standards and does not weaken the Authority responsible for regulating the entire aviation industry. Distinguished Members, the NCAA is Nigeria’s State Safety Oversight Authority.

By law, it is responsible for regulating, certifying, inspecting and continuously overseeing airlines, aerodromes, the Air Navigation Service Provider (in this case, NAMA), Approved Maintenance Organizations, Approved Training Organizations, aviation personnel, allied service providers and, indeed, every other aviation service provider operating within Nigeria. Unlike other aviation agencies, the NCAA does not provide commercial services. It exists solely to ensure that every organization operating within Nigeria’s aviation system complies with national regulations, in addition to the Standards and Recommended Practices of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO).

The Authority is, therefore, the independent regulator upon which the safety of Nigeria’s civil aviation system depends. Simply put, NCAA was established to perform sovereign regulatory functions in the public interest. Consequently, the cost of discharging these responsibilities cannot reasonably be recovered solely from the operators it regulates.

This was one of the fundamental reasons why a dedicated Ticket Sales Charge (TSC) and Cargo Sales Charge (CSC) funding mechanism was established, consistent with ICAO’s long-standing policy that the cost of safety regulation should be supported by the aviation community. Beyond its domestic regulatory responsibilities, the NCAA also bears the financial responsibility for Nigeria’s mandatory contributions to key international and regional civil aviation organizations, including the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), the Banjul Accord Group Aviation Safety & Security Oversight Organization (BAGASOO) and the African Civil Aviation Commission (AFCAC).

These are obligations of the Nigerian State, yet the financial responsibility for meeting these contributions is borne by the Authority from its own resources.

Indeed, ICAO recognizes this responsibility through Protocol Question (PQ) 2.051 of the Universal Safety Oversight Audit Programme (USOAP), which assesses whether a State has established a mechanism to ensure that its Safety Oversight Authority has sufficient financial resources to meet both its national and international obligations.

Accordingly, the NCAA’s funding supports not only domestic regulatory oversight but also Nigeria’s continued compliance with its international obligations and participation in the global and regional aviation safety system. This distinction between the NCAA and operational aviation agencies is fundamental. While the NCAA exists to regulate the aviation industry in the public interest, Air Navigation Service Providers are established to provide operational services directly to aircraft operators.

Consequently, ICAO envisages different funding philosophies for each.

Whereas Civil Aviation Authorities require sustainable funding to discharge sovereign regulatory responsibilities, Air Navigation Service Providers are expected to progressively attain financial sustainability through charges levied on the users of the services they provide. Distinguished Members, only a few months ago, ICAO conducted a Coordinated Validation Mission (ICVM) in Nigeria.

We are pleased that Nigeria achieved an Effective Implementation score of 91.3%, reflecting the collective efforts of Government and all aviation stakeholders. However, the assessment also identified a significant area of concern.

Nigeria recorded its lowest Effective Implementation score, of only 50%, in the area of financial resources supporting the State Safety Oversight System.”

He further explained that air navigation service providers (such as NAMA) do not oversight themselves but “every certification, every surveillance inspection and every regulatory approval depends upon competent and experienced aviation inspectors. NCAA’s oversight functions goes beyond just NAMA.

If the Authority’s statutory funding is further reduced under the present circumstances, the NCAA cannot responsibly assure this distinguished Committee that it will be able to sustain the level of safety oversight necessary to guarantee the continued safety of Nigeria’s civil aviation industry.”

He noted that in addition to Federal Government funding NAMA gets for its infrastructure through BASA funds which, by the way, NCAA does not benefit from, NAMA already possesses no less than sixteen (16) commercial revenue streams established by law, including over-flight and en-route international charges,  domestic en-route charges, charges on Class B message charges, terminal navigation charges, . sales of aeronautical information, airspace violation fines, rentage of property, plant and equipment, calibration fees,  obstacle evaluation fees,  telecommunications services, provision of air traffic services at private and state aerodromes and hajj or pilgrimage operations. He said 13. 14. 15 and 16 dwell on cartographic survey and cartographic charges, aerial operations charges, consultancy services, as well as the sales, rents or lease of landed properties. These are precisely the types of commercial revenue mechanisms that ICAO envisages for Air Navigation Service Providers.

“Available financial information further indicates that these commercial and operational activities account for approximately 75% of NAMA’s total revenue, while the contentious 5% TSC makes up only about 25%. So even if, hypothetically speaking, NAMA is allocated the whole 100% of the 5% TSC, which of course would spell the end of the NCAA, it would still not cater for the financial demands NAMA is calling for.

In stark contrast for NCAA, the 5% TSC is the lifeline of NCAA representing approximately 83% of its funds, with all other fees NCAA charges service providers in respect of regulatory services provided accounting for the remaining 17%.

It is clear that a further reduction in the NCAA’s statutory allocation would therefore have a disproportionately greater impact on the financial sustainability of Nigeria’s Safety Oversight Authority than on the operational funding of NAMA.  ICAO’s Policy on Charges ICAO’s charging policies reinforce this distinction.

Paragraph 1.2.1(a) of ICAO Doc 9082 recommends that States should “permit the imposition of charges only for services and functions which are provided for, directly related to, or ultimately beneficial for, civil aviation operations.”

In other words, ICAO requires a direct relationship between any charge imposed versus the service for which that charge is collected.

Furthermore, ICAO Doc 9082 defines “users” as aircraft operators using airports and air navigation facilities and services, while “end-users” refers to the ultimate consumers, such as passengers and shippers.

Throughout Chapter 3 dealing with the recovery of air navigation service costs, ICAO consistently refers to “users” rather than “end-users”, thereby demonstrating that the costs of air navigation services are intended to be recovered principally from aircraft operators who use those services, not from passengers.

Indeed, paragraph 3.2 of ICAO Doc 9082 specifically provides that the allocation of the costs of air navigation services should be made among aeronautical users in an equitable manner and that no user should be burdened with costs not properly allocable to them.

This reflects ICAO’s long-standing policy that Air Navigation Service Providers should recover the cost of their operations through the users of the services they provide. NAMA, therefore, should not be collecting any share of the TSC because TSC comes from passengers.

The users of NAMA’s services are not the passengers but, rather, the aircraft operators. Equally significant is paragraph 3.1.3(g) of ICAO Doc 9082 which expressly provides that the costs directly related to oversight functions, including safety oversight of air navigation services may be included in the Air Navigation Service Provider’s cost basis at the State’s discretion. Since these oversight functions are performed by the NCAA, ICAO expressly recognizes that the cost of regulating air navigation services may legitimately be recovered through the charges collected by the ANSP from aircraft operators.

This demonstrates that ICAO’s policy is capable of supporting the funding of the regulator from the ANSP’s charging mechanism where appropriate, rather than weakening the regulator by reducing its own statutory funding.

If additional resources are required to support NAMA’s infrastructure development or operational expansion, the Authority respectfully submits that such support should be pursued through the optimization of these existing statutory revenue streams, improved commercial efficiency and, where necessary, targeted Government funding for strategic capital projects, consistent with ICAO policy and international best practice.”

NCAA appealed to the National Assembly Committee to “consider the internationally accepted principles governing the funding of Civil Aviation Authorities and Air Navigation Service Providers before deciding on the proposed amendment.

Those principles are clearly set out in the following; – ICAO Doc 9082 (ICAO’s Policies on Charges for Airports and Air Navigation Services), – ICAO Doc 9161 (Manual on Air Navigation Services Economics), – ICAO Doc 9734, Part A (Safety Oversight Manual), and more recently, – the ICAO Global Aviation Safety Plan (Doc 10004, 2026 2028 Edition).

A careful consideration of these documents demonstrates that although Civil Aviation Authorities and Air Navigation Service Providers are both indispensable to aviation safety, they perform fundamentally different statutory functions, and are therefore expected to operate under different funding philosophies.

The ICAO documents, when read together, establish a consistent policy framework. ICAO Doc 9734 requires States to provide their Safety Oversight Authorities with adequate financial and human resources. Another ICAO document – Doc 10004 – identifies inadequate funding of Safety Oversight Authorities as one of the world’s organizational challenges “of the utmost priority.” ICAO Doc 9161 provides guidance on the economic regulation and financing of air navigation services, while ICAO Doc 9082 establishes the charging principles applicable to Air Navigation Service Providers.

These documents complement one another and collectively distinguish the funding model applicable to a Civil Aviation Authority from that applicable to an Air Navigation Service Provider. It is particularly significant that ICAO Doc 9082 expressly permits the cost of safety oversight of air navigation services to be included in the Air Navigation Service Provider’s cost basis. In other words, ICAO recognizes that the cost of NCAA’s regulatory oversight of NAMA may legitimately form part of the economic cost recovered by the ANSP from aircraft operators using its services.

This is entirely consistent with ICAO’s charging philosophy and further demonstrates that ICAO’s policy supports the funding of the regulator, rather than the diversion of the regulator’s own statutory funding to a service provider it regulates. We are continually making references to ICAO so that these internationally accepted principles guide any review of Nigeria’s existing funding framework. Aviation is global. Distinguished Members, this hearing brings together regulators, aviation professionals, airline operators, pilots, engineers, industry associations and other stakeholders who share a common commitment to the continued safety, security and sustainable development of Nigeria’s civil aviation industry.

Many of them may make independent submissions during this hearing and will provide additional technical, operational and professional perspectives on the issues before this honourable Committee.

The Authority respectfully invites the Committee to carefully consider those submissions alongside the ICAO guidance documents we earlier referenced. A careful and holistic consideration of these ICAO documents will demonstrate that while both the NCAA and NAMA play different, but critical roles, within the aviation system, ICAO deliberately prescribes different funding philosophies for each because they perform fundamentally different statutory functions. The issue before this distinguished Committee is therefore not simply one of revenue distribution, but of maintaining consistency with internationally accepted principles governing the financing of safety regulation and air navigation service provision.

While ICAO envisages that Air Navigation Service Providers should progressively finance their operations through charges imposed on the users of their services, it simultaneously requires States to ensure that their CAAs possess adequate financial resources to effectively discharge their sovereign safety oversight responsibilities. Reducing the NCAA’s principal statutory source of funding would move Nigeria further away from, rather than closer to, this internationally accepted framework.

The Way Forward The Authority is not before this distinguished Committee to oppose the strengthening of any aviation agency. On the contrary, we believe that every aviation agency should be adequately funded to effectively discharge its statutory responsibilities. Indeed, if additional financial support is required for NAMA, the Authority respectfully submits that such support should first be pursued through the optimization of its extensive statutory commercial revenue streams, improved operational efficiency and corporate governance, and where necessary, targeted Government support for strategic capital infrastructure, consistent with ICAO policy and international best practice.

The Authority further respectfully submits that any review of Nigeria’s aviation funding framework should also take cognizance of the fact that the NCAA remains heavily dependent on the Ticket Sales Charge for the discharge of its statutory responsibilities, whereas NAMA already derives the greater proportion of its income from commercial charges levied on aircraft operators for the services it provides.

Our respectful submission is that this objective should be achieved in a manner that is consistent with ICAO policy, international best practice and Nigeria’s obligations as a Contracting State to the Chicago Convention.”

NCAA requested that the NASS Committee “champions the return to the original vision that drove the establishment of the NCAA and NAMA in 1999. We submit that NCAA’s allocation of the 5% TSC be restored to 65% to overcome the deficiencies identified by ICAO at its last audit, and bring Nigeria in line with global best funding practices” stating that “aviation safety is not sustained by legislation alone. It depends upon competent inspectors, effective surveillance, continuous certification, recurrent technical training, international cooperation and an independent regulator possessing the financial capacity to discharge its statutory mandate without compromise. Every one of these functions depends upon adequate and sustainable funding. “

“The proposal before this distinguished Committee should therefore be considered not merely as a redistribution of statutory revenue, but in terms of its potential impact on Nigeria’s ability to sustain an effective State Safety Oversight System consistent with the Standards and Recommended Practices of ICAO and to safeguard the travelling public,” said Najomo .