Securiport, the American company involved in airport security and immigration technology projects across several countries, has faced scrutiny over government contracts, passenger fees, procurement arrangements and the handling of public revenue.
The concerns are documented in national audit reports, judicial proceedings, government announcements and investigative journalism, but these records do not always establish the same facts or reach the same conclusions.
In The Gambia, auditors questioned procurement procedures and payments made under an airport security agreement, while in Sierra Leone the government suspended collection of a passenger fee pending further examination.
Benin’s contractual dispute produced an international arbitration award and a subsequent ruling in Paris, while more recent agreements in Gabon and the Democratic Republic of the Congo have raised separate questions about passenger charges and implementation.
Understanding these cases requires distinguishing between what governments agreed to pay, what companies actually received, what auditors questioned, what courts decided and what remains unresolved.
What does Securiport actually do?
Securiport provides technology and related services used in civil aviation security, immigration processing, passenger information management and border control, often under agreements with national governments.
Its systems can support the collection and processing of passenger information, document checks, biometric identification and other functions that help immigration and border authorities carry out their responsibilities.
The distinction between a technology provider and a public authority matters because governments establish national immigration rules, approve public charges and determine the contractual powers granted to service providers.
An agreement may require a private company to finance equipment, train government personnel, maintain computer systems or administer an approved passenger fee, without transferring every public responsibility to that company.
Questions about whether a charge is lawful, whether a contract was properly awarded and whether the money was correctly accounted for must consequently be answered using the relevant country’s records.
The Gambia: What the national audit actually found
The Gambia’s National Audit Office published a management letter in November 2022 examining the award and administration of Securiport’s agreement at Banjul International Airport.
The audit examined financial transactions from September 2019 through May 2021 and raised concerns about procurement, contract negotiations, passenger fee collection, revenue reconciliation and technical controls.
Its findings were substantial, with 34 of the 36 issues ranked as high priority and two ranked as medium priority, according to the National Audit Office’s published report.
Auditors reported that the contract originated from an unsolicited proposal without competitive bidding and questioned the failure to involve certain government institutions in negotiations and approvals.
They also identified shortcomings in the collection and banking of passenger fees, including transfers between accounts, discrepancies in supporting records and delays in remitting the government’s share.
Those findings should not be dismissed, because they document genuine concerns about how the agreement was awarded and administered during the period examined by the auditors.
The same management letter also contains responses from Securiport, the Gambia Civil Aviation Authority and other government offices, making it possible to distinguish disputed findings from actions the parties said had already been taken.
The D274 million and D164 million figures are not the same finding
One of the most persistent sources of confusion is the treatment of two financial figures as though both represent final, independently established losses arising from the same calculation.
In September 2022, investigative publication Malagen estimated that aspects of the airport security arrangement could have caused possible economic losses of at least D274 million.
That figure was presented in a media investigation into the arrangement, rather than as a final judicial determination that the company had unlawfully received that amount.
The National Audit Office separately documented D164,053,036 in government arrears payments made to Securiport Gambia LLC following delays in implementing the agreed passenger fee collection arrangements.
Auditors questioned whether the government was legally obliged to make those payments and recommended obtaining legal advice before proceeding with further payments or pursuing recovery.
Securiport disputed the auditors’ interpretation, arguing in its recorded management response that the agreement placed responsibility on the government when the required airline ticketing arrangements were not established.
The company maintained that relevant government representatives had checked the calculations and that the agreement remained binding, while the auditors continued to question whether those payments were justified.
The distinction is important because an investigative estimate, a recorded government payment and a sum legally determined to be recoverable are different forms of evidence.
The published audit does not itself establish that a court ordered the recovery of D164 million, nor does it establish that the company’s contractual explanation was accepted by the auditors.
What happened to the government’s share of passenger fees?
The Banjul agreement examined by the auditors allocated 75 percent of the US$20 passenger security fee to Securiport and 25 percent to the Gambia Civil Aviation Authority.
Auditors found that the authority had not received its share during an initial collection period, raising concerns about the controls governing revenue and the timing of transfers.
Securiport responded that delays in establishing the joint banking arrangements had affected the process and maintained that the government’s accrued share was subsequently transferred.
The management letter also recorded responses describing jointly managed accounts and corrective arrangements, although some other reconciliation and control findings remained unresolved
when the report was finalised.
The proper conclusion is neither that every payment was proven unlawful nor that the entire revenue system received a clean audit, since the document supports neither sweeping claim.
A final account would require updated bank reconciliations, official follow-up findings and records showing which recommendations were implemented and which financial questions remain outstanding.
What about the November 2026 court challenge?
On 5 November 2026, a legal challenge by Gambian lawyer Ousman F. M’Bai was reported concerning the legality and administration of the airport security fee.
The reported proceedings question the authority to collect the charge, the government’s contractual arrangements, the management of passenger payments and certain enforcement practices at the airport.
These are material questions for judicial consideration, particularly because passengers have been required to pay the charge as part of their journeys through Banjul.
The reporting available for this review did not establish a final court ruling on those questions, meaning the challenge should be described as pending rather than as a judicial finding against Securiport.
For travellers, the UK government’s published entry guidance continues to identify a US$20 airport security fee on arrival and departure, subject to stated exemptions.
The existence of an ongoing legal challenge does not by itself establish that a court has invalidated the fee, and a current court order or official government notice would be needed to confirm any resulting change.
Sierra Leone: A suspended airport fee is not a terminated contract
Sierra Leone provides another example of how historical passenger charges, government decisions and current technical operations can become confused when reported without their dates.
The Auditor-General’s 2015 report recorded a contractual amendment involving a US$40 passenger security charge, while reporting from 2017 described an equivalent US$80 cost for a return journey.
Those figures concern an earlier period and should not be presented as the applicable passenger charge under the arrangements that followed several years later.
The Ministry of Internal Affairs subsequently announced a US$25 airport security fee, which applied from September 2022 before the government decided to suspend its collection in July 2026.
According to the public notice issued on 3 July 2026, the suspension took effect on 6 July and was intended to allow a review of the contract and an independent special audit.
The ministry explicitly distinguished that fee collection decision from the underlying operating agreement, stating that the suspension did not terminate Securiport’s existing contract.
It also indicated that core technical operations, including certain passenger data functions, would continue during the review, even though the passenger payment arrangements had been paused.
What did the June 2026 equipment inspection establish?
Before the suspension, the Sierra Leone Immigration Department’s Audit Committee inspected specified equipment provided by Securiport at Freetown International Airport on 20 June 2026.
The equipment included cameras, scanners, monitors and electronic gate booths, which the committee examined during a visit intended to assess their operational condition.
According to the Immigration Department’s official report, the equipment inspected was found to be in good working order.
That is a significant operational finding because it documents the condition of identifiable equipment at a particular time, rather than relying solely on company statements.
The inspection does not resolve questions about contract pricing, revenue management or the later special audit, which concern different matters requiring their own evidence.
The most accurate description of Sierra Leone’s position is that fee collection was suspended pending review, the government said the operating contract continued, and official inspectors had separately documented functioning equipment.
As of the records examined for this article, no published final result of the announced July 2026 special audit was identified that would justify declaring every outstanding question resolved.
Benin: What the Paris court decided about the Securiport contract
Securiport’s dispute with the Republic of Benin is among the more important cases to examine because it involves both international arbitration and allegations concerning the original agreement.
Following the termination of a border security contract, an International Chamber of Commerce arbitration tribunal issued an award in January 2019 in favour of the contracting companies.
Benin challenged that award before the Paris Court of Appeal, raising arguments that included alleged corruption surrounding the agreement and objections concerning the arbitral proceedings.
On 27 October 2020, the court rejected the application to annul the award after examining whether the evidence presented met the legal standard relevant to the corruption argument.
The court found that sufficiently serious, precise and consistent indications of corruption had not been established for the purpose of setting aside the arbitration award.
The decision is recorded under case number RG 19/04177 and can be examined in the Paris Court of Appeal’s published judgment.
This ruling is important because it demonstrates that the corruption argument was considered by a court in a defined legal proceeding, rather than being left entirely unanswered.
It would nevertheless be inaccurate to claim that the Paris judgment cleared every person and company of every allegation connected with the Benin arrangement.
Separate proceedings were pursued in Benin, and the Paris court’s decision concerned the validity of the arbitration award under the grounds examined in that appeal.
A fair account must preserve both the outcome favourable to Securiport in Paris and the distinction between that decision and other national legal proceedings.
Democratic Republic of the Congo: Does the reported US$30 fee mean passengers pay a new tax?
Reports published in November 2025 described a Securiport agreement with the Democratic Republic of the Congo covering an integrated system for airport security and immigration services.
The reported contractual terms included a US$30 charge associated with international passengers, which generated concern over whether travellers would face another compulsory payment.
According to Actualité.cd’s reporting on the agreement, the contract provided for a revenue allocation of 85 percent to Securiport and 15 percent to the state.
Separate reporting cited an Interior Ministry official who maintained that the relevant security charge was already included in airline ticket prices rather than representing a new payment at the airport.
The two accounts raise different questions, since the existence of a payment mechanism in a contract does not by itself establish when collection began or whether passengers paid an additional charge.
The reported Securiport charge should also be distinguished from Go Pass, the separate airport infrastructure charge associated with the country’s aviation infrastructure arrangements.
The public records reviewed through 10 November 2026 did not establish that travellers were being required to make an additional US$30 payment under the reported agreement.
A current government tariff, airline fare breakdown or official implementation notice would provide stronger evidence than a contractual amount quoted without its operational status.
Until those records are available, describing the US$30 figure as an established new airport payment would go beyond what the reviewed evidence confirms.
Senegal: What earlier state inspections established
Senegal’s public record contains another significant audit concerning Securiport, including findings published by the country’s Inspection générale d’État in its July 2014 report.
The inspectors criticised the procedures used to conclude the airport security agreement, including the absence of required approvals and the manner in which the contract had been awarded.
The official 2014 report also examined passenger fee revenue and questioned aspects of the programme’s financial arrangements and integration with government systems.
Those findings form part of the historical record and should not be presented as allegations without documentary support, since the state inspection itself is publicly available.
Equally, an official inspection report does not automatically establish that every person or company mentioned was subsequently convicted of a criminal offence.
Published aviation tariffs have identified a US$12 security charge in Senegal, but a historical tariff alone cannot establish the present contractual operator or the status of any renewal.
Further clarity would require publication of the current agreement, any renewal or termination decision, and official follow-up on the financial and procurement findings.
Gabon: New government agreements and an officially published charge
Gabon provides a more recent example of a government publicly identifying Securiport’s proposed duties and setting out the basis for a passenger information programme.
On 21 May 2026, the Gabonese government announced agreements involving Securiport and Westminster Group, with different responsibilities assigned to the two companies.
Securiport’s agreement concerned passenger information collection and processing, including Advance Passenger Information and Passenger Name Record functions for covered international airports.
An order issued on 10 June 2026 established a US$30 charge for the API/PNR programme on covered international commercial flights, with specified exemptions and collection arrangements.
Unlike an amount appearing only in a reported contract extract, this charge has a published legal instrument available through Gabon’s official gazette.
The government’s official announcements establish the agreement and the regulatory framework, although separate commissioning and operational records would be needed to confirm when particular airport installations entered service.
These distinctions allow the public to assess a government programme using identified documents rather than assuming that an agreement, published tariff and completed installation are interchangeable events.
Equatorial Guinea and Mali: Why project dates matter
In Equatorial Guinea, Securiport previously reported the transfer of an earlier border security system to national authorities following the completion of its contractual programme.
A new round of discussions was publicly reported in November 2026, when the country’s vice-president requested a trial of proposed airport security arrangements at Malabo and Bata.
The official announcement of 4 November 2026 also described efforts to reduce proposed charges before any wider deployment.
This is evidence of continued government consideration of the company’s technology, but it does not establish that the new proposal had received final approval or entered full operation.
Mali’s official records separately document a ten-year concession approved in September 2016 concerning the construction, maintenance and transfer of civil aviation and immigration security systems.
That approval establishes the historical contractual framework, but any statement about the current operator, renewal or final handover requires records beyond the original decree.
United States: What the October 2026 civil settlement means
Any current account of Securiport’s legal record should also acknowledge the civil settlement announced by the United States Department of Justice on 21 October 2026.
The department stated that Securiport Limited Liability Company and Alex Stewart International, LLC agreed to pay a combined US$1,816,943 to resolve civil False Claims Act allegations.
The allegations concerned eligibility statements made in applications for Second Draw Paycheck Protection Program loans, particularly representations about employee numbers across the companies and their affiliates.
The Justice Department’s announcement described a settlement of civil allegations rather than a criminal conviction or a judicial determination that the allegations had been proven.
It expressly stated that civil liability had not been determined, a distinction that should be preserved whenever the settlement is discussed.
The official Justice Department announcement also makes clear that the matter concerned federal pandemic relief lending rather than the legality of any particular African airport security fee.
The settlement is a real part of the company’s public record, but treating it as proof of criminal wrongdoing in unrelated airport agreements would extend the findings beyond the case’s subject matter.
Common questions about Securiport and airport security contracts
Has Securiport faced official audits and allegations?
Yes, Securiport has been named in government audits, contractual disputes, judicial proceedings and public reporting concerning airport security projects, with the issues varying considerably between countries and periods.
Those records include adverse findings that deserve scrutiny, as well as company responses, later government decisions and judicial outcomes that must be considered before reaching conclusions.
Did The Gambia’s audit prove that Securiport stole D274 million?
No such finding can be attributed to the published management letter, because the D274 million figure came from a separate investigative estimate of possible economic loss.
The auditors recorded D164,053,036 in questioned arrears payments and recommended legal advice and possible recovery, while also raising serious concerns about other revenue controls.
Was Securiport’s contract cancelled in Sierra Leone in July 2026?
The published ministry notice said that collection of the US$25 passenger fee was suspended, but explicitly stated that this did not terminate the operating contract.
The government also said Securiport would continue specified technical functions during the review, leaving the special audit and any later contractual decisions as separate questions.
Did a French court reject corruption arguments in the Benin arbitration dispute?
Yes, the Paris Court of Appeal rejected Benin’s challenge to the arbitration award in October 2020 after examining whether the corruption indicators met the relevant legal standard.
That judgment concerns the specific arbitration challenge and should not be extended into a claim that unrelated allegations or proceedings were all dismissed.
Has Securiport been found civilly liable in the October 2026 United States settlement?
The Justice Department stated that the companies resolved civil allegations through a combined financial settlement and that no determination of civil liability had been made.
That outcome must be described accurately, without presenting the allegations as proven findings or suggesting that the settlement itself established wrongdoing under the company’s airport contracts.
What would improve public accountability?
The recurring issue across these programmes is the difficulty of establishing a complete, current account of the contractual arrangements, passenger payments and subsequent government oversight.
A useful public record would identify the authority that approved each charge, the contract period, the service obligations, the collection arrangements and the official status of any review.
Where audits identify revenue discrepancies, governments and contractors should provide dated responses supported by reconciliations, transfer records and evidence of steps taken to address the findings.
Independent inspections can establish whether equipment was functioning at a given time, while financial audits and court proceedings address different questions about compliance, public revenue and legal obligations.
These records become more useful when changes are clearly dated and earlier findings remain accessible alongside subsequent responses, decisions and evidence of correction.
For Securiport, the strongest account is one that neither overlooks adverse findings nor turns every allegation, audit recommendation or disputed payment into a criminal judgment.
The evidence must remain attached to its country, authority, date and legal status, allowing readers to establish what happened, what changed and which questions still require answers.
Disclosure: This article was prepared as part of communications work concerning Securiport. It draws on publicly available government documents, audit findings, judicial decisions, official announcements and published reporting reviewed through 10 November 2026.
