Despite global best practices that require airports to maintain layered insurance protection, findings indicate that Nigeria’s 22 Federal Government-owned airports currently operate without full insurance cover for key risks such as fire outbreaks, floods, storms, and structural damage.
Industry stakeholders argue that this gap places the system far behind international standards and increases vulnerability in the event of large-scale incidents.
No Comprehensive Insurance Cover for Federal Airports
Investigations show that none of the 22 airports managed under the Federal Government has a fully comprehensive insurance policy covering major infrastructure and equipment risks.
While aviation operations are typically backed by strict insurance frameworks globally, Nigeria’s aerodromes appear to lack structured protection for physical assets, leaving critical facilities exposed to financial losses during disasters.
This situation has raised concerns among industry analysts, who say airport operators, airlines, and even passengers may end up bearing costs that should ordinarily be absorbed by insurance mechanisms.
Regulatory Confusion: CARs 2012 vs CARs 2023
Further scrutiny of aviation regulations reveals inconsistencies in Nigeria’s Civil Aviation framework.
The Nig. CARs 2012 clearly required aviation stakeholders to maintain insurance coverage. Section 18.12.2 stated the need for “adequate and Valid Insurance for airlines, aerodromes, air navigation, meteorological services, ground handling, and other Allied Aviation Service Providers”.
It also provided minimum third-party liability requirements under Section 18.12.4.
However, in the Nig. CARs 2023, compulsory insurance provisions for aerodromes were significantly diluted. While airlines and service providers were instructed under Section 18.14.1.1 to notify the Director-General of Civil Aviation about their insurance status, there was no explicit requirement mandating airport operators to insure aerodromes themselves.
Even more concerning to observers is that the Federal Airports Authority of Nigeria (FAAN) Act, 2022 does not clearly stipulate aerodrome insurance obligations.
FAAN Claims Airports Are Insured, but Details Remain Unclear
A representative of the Federal Airports Authority of Nigeria (FAAN) insisted that insurance coverage exists for airports, stating that “the airports are insured”, but declined to provide clarity on the nature or scope of the policies.
The lack of transparency has intensified questions about whether the insurance in place actually covers critical infrastructure, passenger liability, and operational risks.
Global Standards Highlight Nigeria’s Lag
Under the framework of the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO), airlines and aircraft operators are required to maintain minimum liability and war risk insurance. However, ICAO does not mandate airport operators to insure terminals and infrastructure, instead only advising them to do so.
In practice, many countries have gone beyond ICAO’s advisory position by enforcing comprehensive airport insurance systems.
In Ethiopia, for example, airports such as Addis Ababa Bole International Airport are covered under dual insurance structures that include property protection and liability coverage. These are backed by domestic insurers and international reinsurers.
Similarly, airports under the Airports Company South Africa (ACSA)—including O.R. Tambo International Airport, Cape Town International Airport, and King Shaka International Airport—operate under extensive insurance frameworks covering infrastructure, employees, and operational risks.
Government Admission and Partial Insurance Approval
The Minister of Aviation and Aerospace Development had previously acknowledged that Nigerian airports were not fully insured.
However, he disclosed that the Federal Executive Council (FEC) approved a ₦1.09 billion insurance package for airport facilities, following directives requiring Ministries, Departments, and Agencies to insure critical national assets.
He explained that:
“Most of these airports have remained without insurance for a long time. This one not only covers the assets, but also the personnel of FAAN.”
He further added:
“Of course, you know that is in keeping with best labour practices that you don’t have personnel working in such an environment without insurance cover, so that has been done today for all the airports in Nigeria.”
Despite this, stakeholders note that the coverage appears to focus more on personnel and select assets, rather than full-scale airport infrastructure and operational liabilities.
Rising Losses From Airport-Related Incidents
The absence of robust insurance has left airlines and service providers to shoulder significant financial burdens.
A fire incident at Terminal One of the Murtala Muhammed International Airport in Lagos previously destroyed critical equipment belonging to the Nigerian Airspace Management Agency (NAMA), the Nigerian Meteorological Agency (NiMET), and several concessionaires.
The Airline Operators of Nigeria (AON) also revealed that carriers lose at least ₦20 billion annually due to bird strike incidents across Nigerian airports.
So far in 2026, at least 15 bird strike incidents have been reported involving operators such as Air Peace, Ibom Air, and United Nigeria Airlines.
In many cases, airlines bear the full cost of aircraft repairs without any compensatory insurance support from airport authorities.
Regulatory Oversight Questions and Industry Warnings
Attempts to obtain clarification from the Nigerian Civil Aviation Authority (NCAA) did not yield detailed responses. However, internal sources suggested that many airports may indeed lack comprehensive insurance coverage.
The same sources indicated that efforts are ongoing between the NCAA and FAAN to improve insurance compliance across airports.
Experts warn that continued gaps in coverage could reinforce Nigeria’s reputation as a high-risk aviation environment, increasing insurance premiums, raising aircraft leasing costs, and discouraging foreign investment.
Expert Concerns Over Legal and Safety Compliance
Aviation expert Capt. Samuel Caulcrick raised concerns about potential regulatory breaches, noting that updated aviation rules now require insurance coverage for airport facilities.
He stated:
“If speculation about the lack of a valid insurance policy for Terminal 1 proves true, it would constitute a direct breach of Nig. CARs Part 18 and the Civil Aviation Act 2022, which could lead to penalties, suspension or revocation of operating permits.”
Calls for Transparency and Regulatory Enforcement
Aviation analyst Mohammed Badamasi also questioned official assurances that airports are fully insured, challenging authorities to provide documentation of coverage.
He argued that:
“There’s something fishy about the information that these airports are insured. We challenge FAAN to prove that these airports are fully insured in accordance with the Insurance Act 2023.”
He further stressed that proper insurance should cover fire, storms, structural damage, and passenger safety within terminal environments, adding that unclear coverage raises serious regulatory concerns.
Badamasi also urged the NCAA to strengthen oversight and ensure strict compliance with aviation and insurance laws.
A technical staff member of the liquidated national carrier, Nigeria Airways, Frank Oruye, explained that the new law has significantly tightened enforcement around insurance obligations for public buildings, including aviation facilities. According to him, airports are no longer left in a regulatory grey area but are now clearly expected to maintain adequate insurance cover against major risks.
Oruye stressed that the reform requires critical public infrastructure to be insured against fire outbreaks, structural collapse, and other unforeseen hazards that could lead to massive financial losses. In practical terms, this means airport operators must ensure that both facilities and users are protected through enforceable insurance arrangements.
He warned that ignoring this requirement could prove extremely costly. In his words:
“Nigeria has had a spate of fires affecting skyscraper buildings since the mid-’60s. In recent times, building collapses have affected inhabited buildings and buildings under construction. Therefore, compliance with this provision will ensure that owners and occupants of buildings can have access to funds for their compensation in the occurrence of such events.”
Expanding on the aviation-specific implications, Oruye cautioned that airports without insurance exposure place operators at risk of overwhelming financial liabilities. He added:
“Non-Insurance of airports will expose the operators to colossal claims for damages, along with the penalties for non-compliance with the statute. The owners of such businesses will also have to bear the cost of repairs or rebuilding of the damaged facility.”
His remarks align with broader concerns in the aviation sector about regulatory gaps that could worsen financial exposure during accidents or infrastructure failures.
Aviation security consultant, John Ojikutu, also raised concerns about inconsistencies in regulatory provisions. He pointed out that the Nig. CARs 2023, unlike the earlier Nig. CARs 2012, does not contain mandatory insurance requirements for the Federal Airports Authority of Nigeria (FAAN). According to him, this omission had previously been flagged to both the National Assembly and the Nigeria Civil Aviation Authority (NCAA), but without resolution.
Ojikutu warned that the absence of compulsory insurance could leave aviation agencies exposed to legal and compensation claims in the event of accidents involving aircraft operations, ground handling errors, or airport authority lapses.
He recalled past aviation incidents where government agencies were held liable by courts. One such case involved a 2004/2005 cargo flight incident in which an aircraft was mistakenly cleared to land on a closed runway and subsequently crashed, resulting in a court award of $6 million against the government.
Another case he referenced involved an Emirates aircraft that was cleared for taxi operations at Lagos airport and struck a parked aircraft on the domestic apron while manoeuvring, highlighting how operational lapses can escalate into costly liabilities.
Ojikutu emphasised that insurance is not merely procedural but essential for financial protection and victim compensation when aviation accidents occur. He further suggested that Nigerian airports should be classified based on traffic volume and operational scale to determine appropriate insurance requirements and service charges.
In his words:
“Implementation of non-insurance is seen on the cost of tickets of some airlines, especially the foreign airlines, where, for example, fares cost higher from Nigeria to travel to Europe than from Ghana.”
He also argued for a structured categorisation of airports, stating:
“These are necessary issues for the NCAA to look into. I have repeated several times that the airports should be graded into five categories for service charges and insurance.”
Raising further concerns about asset protection, he added:
“Some agencies’ equipment was burnt in the last fire incident at the Lagos airport. Are there provisions for them to challenge FAAN to claim damages? The NCAA and the Ministry of Aviation will have to tell us who should be responsible for such careless losses.”
He concluded that many aviation agencies appear to prioritise revenue generation over safety and security, a trend he described as troubling for the sector.
Similarly, the Chief Executive Officer of Nigame Aircraft Consult (United States), Olufemi Adeniji, attributed the ongoing challenges largely to weak enforcement of existing laws. He noted that compulsory insurance for public buildings is already embedded in Section 65 of the Insurance Act 2003, which covers risks such as fire, flood, storms, and structural collapse.
Adeniji maintained that airports clearly fall within the definition of public buildings, as they serve as facilities accessible to members of the public for commercial and transportation purposes. He argued that failure to comply with insurance requirements could attract legal penalties, including fines or imprisonment.
He also questioned the financial transparency of airport operations, asking what the Federal Airports Authority of Nigeria (FAAN) does with revenue generated from airport taxes, parking fees, and the Passenger Service Charge (PSC).
Calling for higher-level intervention, Adeniji urged President Bola Tinubu to investigate the reported removal of airport insurance provisions from the Nig. CARs 2023 and ensure appropriate corrective measures are taken.
However, the Federal Airports Authority of Nigeria (FAAN), through its Director of Public Affairs and Consumer Protection, Henry Agbebire, dismissed concerns about lack of coverage. Responding briefly to enquiries, he stated: “We insist again that the airports are insured.”
At a separate industry event—the 5th CHINET Aviacargo Conference held in Lagos in 2025—Overland Airways Managing Director, Edward Boyo, also claimed that mandatory insurance provisions for airports were removed from the 2023 regulations. He warned that this gap increases the vulnerability of airlines to operational risks linked to airport infrastructure.
“We have to make sure that all airports in Nigeria take on insurance. A lot of aircraft damage occurs because of airport inefficiencies,” he said, pointing to issues such as wildlife intrusion, runway degradation, and poor maintenance practices.
In response to ongoing debates, FAAN Managing Director, Olubunmi Kuku, insisted that the agency maintains valid insurance coverage for all Federal Government-owned airports under its management. She further stated that safety measures, including runway maintenance and de-rubberisation, are actively implemented and backed by verifiable records.
Meanwhile, the National Insurance Commission (NAICOM), through Commissioner Olusegun Omosehin—represented by Deputy Commissioner (Insurance Technical), Usman Jankara—acknowledged concerns that Nigerian airports may lack adequate insurance cover but expressed willingness to engage relevant government bodies to resolve the issue.
Jankara emphasised that compulsory insurance is designed to protect public interest and maintain economic stability. He also explained NAICOM’s regulatory approach, noting that insurers are expected to utilise domestic underwriting capacity before transferring risks to international reinsurance markets.
In his words:
“The underlying rationale for compulsory insurance is to protect members of the public from harm. We are now insisting on very sound underwriting practices.”
He further added:
“Insurers are in business to make profits, not losses. Paying the right premium ensures that claims are settled when risks materialise.”
As the debate continues, stakeholders remain divided over enforcement, compliance, and transparency, but there is broad agreement that adequate insurance coverage is central to protecting both aviation infrastructure and public interest in Nigeria’s rapidly evolving air transport sector.