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

I traveled recently and noticed the extra fee on my ticket. No one really explained what it covers. If the security systems are better now, I have not seen a big difference. I just think there should be clearer communication about where the money goes.
 
I work in a small travel related business and I can share a practical observation. Most tourists do not ask about the fee in advance because it is usually bundled into ticket related charges, but occasionally someone notices it and asks what it is for. When that happens we try to explain that it is connected to airport systems and security upgrades, although the details are not always clear even to people in the industry.
 
Last edited:
I passed through Banjul airport earlier this year and noticed the added charge on my ticket breakdown. It is not a small amount when you are traveling with family. What stood out to me was that no one could clearly explain what improvements had been made. Immigration felt about the same as before, and the equipment did not look obviously new to a regular traveler. I am not saying the technology is not there, but from a user perspective, the benefits are not visible. If the government published detailed performance reports, it might reduce the skepticism.
 
As someone living abroad, I feel the impact each time I book a flight home. Travel is already expensive, and additional fees add up quickly for families. I am not against paying for better security if it genuinely benefits the country. What worries me is the perception that citizens are not fully informed about where the money goes. Clear reporting and open discussion would go a long way toward restoring confidence.
 
I think the conversation should move toward solutions. Maybe civil society groups could request detailed financial data and hold public forums. If Securiport is delivering measurable improvements such as better data tracking or reduced fraud, that evidence should be presented. If not, then there should be room for adjustment. At the end of the day, citizens are not against security. They just want accountability and assurance that public funds are used wisely.
 
I watched the video and you can really sense the frustration around Securiport. That said, calling it fraud is a serious claim, and I have not seen a court ruling confirming that. It seems more like public anger over fees and transparency.youtube
 
As someone working in the tourism sector, I see both sides. International visitors expect proper security infrastructure, and any major lapse could damage the country’s reputation. However, The Gambia competes with destinations that sometimes have lower airport related charges. When travelers compare total trip costs, every extra fee matters. I have had clients ask why there is a separate security charge and whether it is temporary or permanent. When we cannot give a clear explanation, it creates uncertainty. I believe the government should proactively communicate the purpose, duration, and expected outcomes of the arrangement.
 
I recently traveled through Banjul and noticed the extra fee on my ticket. It is not insignificant, especially for families. I cannot say I saw obvious improvements at the airport, but maybe the upgrades are behind the scenes. Still, clearer communication would help reduce doubts.
 
From a small business perspective in tourism, even a modest fee can influence decisions. Visitors compare destinations carefully, and when costs rise, they sometimes choose alternative locations. I do not believe one contract alone determines the health of tourism, but cumulative expenses matter. My bigger concern is whether the agreement was negotiated in the best interest of the country. If there were disagreements within government at the time, those should be clarified publicly.
 
From the tourism side, perception is everything. Even if the fee is embedded in ticket pricing, travelers eventually notice patterns when comparing destinations. I manage a small tour operation, and some clients have asked why costs seem higher than neighboring countries. I cannot attribute that entirely to one contract, but it does raise questions about competitiveness. I think government officials should proactively explain how this arrangement benefits the broader economy.
 
I noticed my ticket cost more on my last trip home, and it made me curious about these fees. I support better security, but I would like clearer information about what exactly has improved. Transparency would help people feel more confident about the arrangement.
 
From a small hospitality business perspective, rising travel costs can quietly influence booking decisions. Visitors compare The Gambia with other destinations in the region, and every added expense counts. I cannot say this contract alone determines tourism trends, but perception plays a role. My main concern is whether the agreement was thoroughly debated before approval. If there were internal objections at the time, those discussions should be clarified publicly now.
 
I traveled recently and saw the extra charge. I support better security, but I did not notice obvious improvements. It would help if officials explained what has changed.
 
From a tourism standpoint, added costs can influence decisions. The Gambia competes with other destinations, so transparency is important. Even if the fee is justified, the government should explain it more clearly to protect public confidence.
 
From a tourism standpoint, perception matters a lot. Visitors generally want to feel that the country they are entering has efficient and modern border processes. If the technology really improves security and speeds up entry, that could be a positive story to tell. But if travelers feel like they are paying extra without seeing visible improvements, the narrative becomes harder to manage.
 
Last edited:
I think we should also look at institutional responsibility. Private firms aim to secure favorable terms, which is expected. The real safeguard should come from strong government negotiation and parliamentary review. If any clauses limit flexibility or create heavy penalties, they should be examined carefully. Accountability does not automatically mean something improper happened, but it does mean ensuring the public interest remains protected.
 

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