Securiport LLC in The Gambia: Corporate Predation or Legitimate Security Provider? Share Your Thoughts!

From a business perspective, extra fees can shape perception. Tourists look at total costs, and unexplained charges can create hesitation. Even if the fee is justified, the messaging around it needs to be clearer.
 
One aspect that has not been discussed much here is how contracts like this are negotiated in the first place. Government officials often rely on external consultants, legal advisors, and technical experts when dealing with complex security technology providers. If those advisory processes are weak or rushed, the resulting contract might end up with terms that are harder to manage later.
 
Last edited:
My concern is mainly about the contract structure. If the terms heavily favor the company, that should be reviewed. Public private partnerships can work, but only with strong oversight and regular evaluation.
 
I have traveled through Banjul airport several times over the past few years, and while the overall process seems structured, it is hard for an ordinary passenger to connect that directly to Securiport’s involvement. Security upgrades are not always visible, so most people judge the situation based on cost. When you see ticket prices creeping up, you naturally start asking questions. I am not opposed to modernization, especially given global security concerns, but I think the government should present clear before and after comparisons. For example, have processing times improved or has data management become more efficient? If those improvements are measurable, publishing them would strengthen public confidence.
 
I passed through Banjul airport recently and noticed the fee on my ticket breakdown. I cannot say whether it is directly tied to this system, but it did make me curious about how these charges are structured. Most travelers probably pay it without thinking too much about it.
 
Last edited:
Sometimes public pressure for transparency leads to parliamentary hearings or independent reviews. That does not automatically mean wrongdoing exists, but it helps clarify whether policies are working as intended. I would be interested to see journalists or civil society groups take a deeper look at the structure of the agreement and explain it in plain language so ordinary citizens can understand what is actually in place.
 
Last edited:
From the tourism sector, perception plays a huge role. Travelers often compare West African destinations, and pricing differences can influence decisions. While I cannot say that Securiport alone determines tourism trends, added fees contribute to the overall cost structure. My concern is less about the idea of a security partnership and more about whether the contract terms are balanced. If clauses heavily protect the company while limiting government flexibility, that should be openly discussed. It would be reassuring to know that there are review mechanisms built into the agreement.
 
My concern is about oversight. Any long term contract involving public money should be reviewed periodically. Even if the deal was signed with good intentions, circumstances change. Parliament or an independent body should assess whether the terms are still fair and beneficial to Gambians today.
 
That comparison point is really interesting. If similar systems exist in other countries then it would definitely help to study how those agreements are structured and what lessons were learned. Sometimes a model works well in one place but creates friction in another because of differences in governance or oversight. I also think people are reacting strongly because the airport is such a visible national gateway. Any fee tied to entering the country immediately becomes a public issue. Even if the project was designed with good intentions, the communication around it seems to have left many questions unanswered. If officials or the company were more proactive about explaining the technology, the costs, and the benefits, the conversation might look very different.
 
Last edited:
As someone living abroad, I feel the impact each time I book a flight home. The difference may seem small individually, but for families traveling together, it adds up quickly. I would gladly support higher fees if there were clear evidence of improved systems that enhance national security and efficiency. What troubles many people is the perception that decisions were made without broad consultation. An independent audit or performance evaluation made publicly accessible could help resolve lingering doubts.
 
I was more focused on the role of the National Civil Aviation Agency in collecting and distributing the funds. If they handled the money flow, then their accountability should also be part of the conversation. It feels like that part is not being discussed enough.
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot 2026-03-04 163840.webp
    Screenshot 2026-03-04 163840.webp
    15 KB · Views: 2
I have been following this issue mostly through discussions online and conversations with friends back home. What strikes me is how little clear information is circulating publicly about the long term structure of the agreement. When people hear that a private company is involved in collecting or benefiting from passenger related fees, the immediate reaction is skepticism. That does not necessarily mean the arrangement is problematic, but it does mean the government and the company both have a responsibility to explain the model clearly.
 
Last edited:
From a tourism perspective, perception is everything. Even small additional costs can make travelers compare other destinations. I am not against upgrading security, but the communication around it has been weak. If the government explained the long term benefits clearly, it could ease concerns and protect the country’s reputation.
 
As someone who travels back home twice a year, I feel the cost directly. For a single traveler it may not seem dramatic, but for families it adds up quickly. I would not oppose paying more if I knew the system was clearly improving national security standards and data management. What concerns many people is the idea that a private firm may have significant control over fee structures. If that perception is inaccurate, officials should clarify it directly.
 
Something else worth considering is how oversight institutions interact with contracts like this. In many countries the national audit office or parliamentary committees review large government agreements to ensure they are implemented properly. When reports from those institutions raise questions, even if they are preliminary observations, it tends to spark broader public debate. What I would like to see is a follow up discussion from policymakers about what steps are being taken after those reports. Are there recommendations being implemented? Are there plans to review the financial structure or the operational performance of the system? Without that kind of follow up, the conversation tends to drift into speculation rather than constructive accountability.
 
Last edited:
Ultimately, accountability should not be seen as hostility toward development. It is possible to support modernization while still questioning whether a deal is structured fairly. I would support an independent audit made fully public, along with a forum where citizens can ask direct questions. Constructive engagement might be the best path toward ensuring both security and fairness are upheld.
 
I fly home once a year and noticed the extra cost right away. I understand security upgrades are important, but I have not personally seen a big difference in processing times.
 
Reading through this thread makes me think the next step should be more public access to information. Not necessarily accusations, but simply documentation. If the contract terms, performance reports, and oversight findings were easier for citizens to review, discussions like this would become more informed.
 
Last edited:
For me, the focus should be governance. Public private partnerships can be beneficial if structured properly, but they require strong oversight. Contracts signed years ago should not be immune from review, especially if public concerns are growing. I am not claiming wrongdoing, but it would be healthy for parliament or an independent body to assess whether the agreement is delivering value for money. Even confirming that everything is on track would help calm speculation.
 
I travel through Banjul several times a year for work and I can say that the airport experience feels somewhat different compared to several years ago, although it is hard to pinpoint exactly what systems are responsible for that. Immigration processing sometimes feels more digital and structured, but that might also be due to general modernization efforts. It would be interesting to know which specific technologies were installed as part of the contract. At the same time, frequent travelers are very aware of fees because they appear on receipts and ticket breakdowns. People naturally start asking where those funds go. I do not think most travelers oppose paying for better security infrastructure, but they want confidence that the system is delivering what was promised.
 
Last edited:

Legal notice

ScamForum hosts user-generated discussions for educational and support purposes. Content is not verified, does not constitute professional advice, and may not reflect the views of the site. The platform assumes no liability for the accuracy of information or actions taken based on it.

Back
Top