Unde Ekpen Nogah
The recent public hearing of the House of Representatives Committee on Aviation on the proposed amendment of the statutory revenue-sharing formula for aviation agencies has generated significant interest within Nigeria’s aviation industry.
Much of the public attention has understandably focused on the request by the Nigerian Airspace Management Agency (NAMA) for an increase in its share of the existing five per cent Ticket, Charter and Cargo Sales Charge (TCSC).
Equally noteworthy, however, was the Agency’s proposal that obstacle evaluation services and Aviation Height Clearance (AHC) should be recognised as technical services rendered by NAMA, with 90 per cent of the associated fees remitted to the Agency and only 10 per cent retained by the Nigeria Civil Aviation Authority (NCAA).
At first glance, the proposal may appear logical. NAMA designs instrument flight procedures, carries out WGS-84 aeronautical surveys, maintains navigation infrastructure and conducts technical obstacle assessments in support of air navigation. These are highly specialised responsibilities requiring significant expertise and investment.
No objective observer would dispute the importance of these functions. Indeed, Nigeria cannot achieve safe, orderly and efficient air navigation without a technically competent and adequately funded Air Navigation Service Provider.
However, the issue before the National Assembly is not simply one of institutional funding. It is one of aviation safety governance. Before any decision is taken regarding Aviation Height Clearance, it is necessary to understand exactly what Aviation Height Clearance represents within the global aviation safety system.
More Than a Permit
To many Nigerians, Aviation Height Clearance is simply the document issued before a telecommunications mast, high-rise building, transmission tower or other tall structure is erected. That perception is understandable. But it is incomplete. Aviation Height Clearance is one of the State’s most important preventive aviation safety mechanisms. Its objective is to ensure that no structure is constructed in a manner that endangers aircraft operations or compromises the safe use of Nigerian airspace.
Contrary to popular belief, the issuance of the clearance is only the final stage of a comprehensive regulatory process. Long before an approval is granted, aviation safety inspectors examine the proposed development against Obstacle Limitation Surfaces (OLS), verify geographical coordinates and elevations, review technical data, conduct aeronautical studies where necessary, assess potential operational impacts, consult relevant stakeholders and carry out site inspections. Even after approval has been granted, the responsibility continues. The regulator monitors compliance, conducts post-construction inspections and enforces corrective measures where violations occur.
These are not commercial services. They are statutory regulatory oversight responsibilities performed in the interest of public safety.
What the Law Provides
Fortunately, this matter is not left to interpretation. The Civil Aviation Act, 2022 clearly assigns the responsibility for regulating structures capable of constituting hazards to air navigation to the Nigeria Civil Aviation Authority. The Authority is empowered to evaluate proposed structures, determine whether they constitute hazards, issue Aviation Height Clearances, undertake continuing surveillance and enforce compliance with aviation safety requirements.
The same legal framework recognises Aviation Height Clearance fees as statutory revenues collected to recover the cost of performing these regulatory functions. That distinction is extremely important. Aviation Height Clearance fees are not payment for operational services. They are regulatory cost-recovery charges designed to ensure that the State safety regulator possesses the financial capacity to discharge its statutory mandate independently and effectively.
International Practice Leaves Little Room for Doubt
Nigeria is a contracting state to the Convention on International Civil Aviation. As such, the country is expected to implement ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices. ICAO Annex 14 requires every State to establish effective systems for obstacle control around aerodromes.
ICAO Doc 9137 (Airport Services Manual, Part 6 – Control of Obstacles), the principal international guidance on obstacle management, identifies obstacle control as a responsibility of the competent aviation authority. Likewise, ICAO’s Universal Safety Oversight Audit Programme (USOAP-CMA) evaluates a State’s implementation of obstacle control, Obstacle Limitation Surfaces, land-use coordination, obstacle marking and lighting, guidance to industry and continuing surveillance against the Civil Aviation Authority.
These responsibilities form part of the State’s Safety Oversight System. They are not evaluated against the Air Navigation Service Provider. This distinction exists for a reason.
ICAO deliberately separates the provider of operational services from the authority responsible for regulating those services. That separation protects regulatory independence and strengthens aviation safety.
Appreciating NAMA’s Contribution
None of this diminishes the invaluable role of NAMA. Far from it. NAMA remains the backbone of Nigeria’s air navigation system. Its responsibility for Air Traffic Services, Communications, Navigation and Surveillance (CNS), Aeronautical Information Services (AIS), instrument flight procedure design and calibration is indispensable to the safe movement of aircraft throughout Nigerian airspace. Indeed, during the design and validation of instrument flight procedures, NAMA conducts technical obstacle assessments to ensure the protection of aircraft flight paths. These activities are essential.
However, they are operational assessments carried out to support the provision of Air Navigation Services. They do not constitute statutory regulatory approval. There is a fundamental difference between evaluating an obstacle for the purpose of designing a flight procedure and approving a structure on behalf of the State. One supports operations. The other exercises sovereign regulatory authority.
The WGS-84 Question
During the public hearing, considerable emphasis was placed on WGS-84 aeronautical surveys and obstacle evaluation. Again, an important distinction must be made. Airport operators, aerodrome developers and other aviation stakeholders routinely engage NAMA to carry out WGS-84 aeronautical surveys, instrument flight procedure design and related technical services. These services are performed under NAMA’s statutory mandate.
More importantly, they are already paid for by the beneficiaries of those services. That is entirely appropriate. Technical services should attract technical service fees. However, Aviation Height Clearance is not one of those services.
It is a statutory regulatory approval issued by the NCAA after considering numerous technical and regulatory inputs. The process extends far beyond WGS-84 surveys.
It includes obstacle limitation assessments, aerodrome safeguarding requirements, land-use compatibility, heliport protection surfaces where applicable, environmental considerations, inspections, continuing surveillance and enforcement. The fact that NAMA contributes technical information to that process does not convert the regulatory approval into an Air Navigation Service. Neither does it create a legal basis for sharing a regulatory cost-recovery fee. If such reasoning were accepted, it would establish a dangerous precedent. Any government agency providing technical advice to another regulator could equally claim entitlement to a percentage of regulatory fees simply because it contributed technical expertise. That has never been the philosophy underpinning regulatory cost recovery anywhere in the world.
Cost Recovery Is Not Revenue Sharing
This brings us to perhaps the most important issue currently before the National Assembly. There is a fundamental difference between payment for services rendered and cost recovery for statutory regulation. NAMA rightly receives payment for the operational services it provides, including Air Traffic Services, CNS, AIS, instrument flight procedure design and WGS-84 surveys undertaken on behalf of airport operators and other clients. Those are operational and technical services.
Aviation Height Clearance is different.
The fees collected by the NCAA recover the cost of performing statutory functions such as technical evaluation, obstacle assessment, aeronautical studies, inspections, approvals, continuing surveillance and enforcement. These are regulatory activities performed in the public interest. Regulatory cost recovery exists to finance independent oversight. It is not a revenue-sharing mechanism.
A Responsibility for Parliament
No one questions NAMA’s need for sustainable funding. Modernising radar systems, replacing ageing communication equipment, maintaining navigation infrastructure and investing in personnel are legitimate national priorities. Those priorities deserve support. Equally deserving of support is an independent Civil Aviation Authority capable of effectively regulating Nigeria’s aviation system.
The solution, however, cannot be to redefine statutory regulatory responsibilities in order to solve institutional funding challenges. The National Assembly must carefully distinguish between operational service provision and independent regulatory oversight. This distinction is not an administrative technicality. It is one of the cornerstones of global aviation safety governance. Any legislative amendment that blurs this boundary risks weakening the institutional independence upon which ICAO’s State Safety Oversight System is founded.
The National Interest Must Prevail
Nigeria’s aviation industry has earned international respect through decades of progressive regulatory reforms and improved compliance with ICAO Standards. Those achievements should be strengthened, not inadvertently undermined. The debate before Parliament should therefore not be viewed as a contest between two aviation agencies. Both the NCAA and NAMA are indispensable to Nigeria’s aviation system. Both require sustainable funding. Both perform critical responsibilities. But those responsibilities are different. NAMA provides operational air navigation services. The NCAA provides independent regulatory oversight. That separation is deliberate. It protects aviation safety. It promotes transparency. It strengthens public confidence.
Most importantly, it preserves Nigeria’s credibility within the international aviation community. As lawmakers deliberate on the proposals before them, they should remember that the issue extends far beyond institutional revenue.
It concerns the future of Nigeria’s aviation safety governance. Funding models can be reviewed. Statutory responsibilities can be strengthened. Operational efficiencies can be improved.
The regulator must remain independent of the service provider, and Aviation Height Clearance must remain what international law, Nigerian law and ICAO Standards have always recognised it to be a State Safety Oversight function exercised in the interest of public safety, not an operational Air Navigation Service.
Nogah, is an aviation veteran