Ojikutu’s Warning Sparks Fresh Concerns Over Aviation Security Risks

Henry Agbebire, Director, Public Affairs & Consumer Protection, FAAN

The recent report in The Guardian Nigeria on alleged vulnerabilities in Nigeria’s airports, and more pointedly the remarks attributed to aviation commentator John Ojikutu, raise a concern that goes beyond aviation security itself. It raises the question of responsibility in public discourse, especially when national security is involved.

Let me be clear from the outset: security concerns must always be taken seriously. Intelligence alerts such as those referenced by the Nigeria Customs Service regarding possible threats from Boko Haram and Islamic State West Africa Province are not matters to trivialise. They demand vigilance, coordination, and professionalism from all relevant authorities. However, what they do not require, and what they certainly do not benefit from, is sensational amplification based on outdated assumptions and incomplete knowledge. This is where Mr Ojikutu’s commentary becomes deeply problematic.

For some time now, he has consistently described Nigerian airports as “porous,” often with sweeping generalisations that do not reflect current operational realities. In the present instance, he again leans heavily on a 2004 audit by the International Civil Aviation Organisation to justify conclusions about today’s security posture. That position is not only outdated; it is misleading.

Aviation security is one of the most dynamic fields in global operations. Over the past two decades, significant changes have occurred worldwide, driven by evolving threats, technological advancements, and continuous ICAO audit cycles. Nigeria has not been an exception. To anchor present-day conclusions on assessments conducted over twenty years ago is to ignore the very nature of how aviation security evolves.

More concerning is Mr Ojikutu’s tendency to reduce a complex, layered security architecture to simplistic narratives. His repeated emphasis on perimeter fencing, particularly the distinction between “perimeter fence” and “security fence”, creates the impression that aviation security can be judged on a single visible parameter. It cannot.

Henry Agbebire, Director, Public Affairs & Consumer Protection, FAAN noted that the security at modern airports is built on multiple interdependent layers, spanning intelligence sharing, access control, passenger and baggage screening, surveillance systems, and inter-agency coordination. Much of this operates beyond public visibility for a reason. To isolate one component and declare systemic failure is not expert analysis; it is an oversimplification that risks misinforming the public.

It is also important to address the issue of currency of knowledge. Mr Ojikutu is not presently embedded within the operational frameworks of the Federal Airports Authority of Nigeria or any aviation security agency. He is not part of the ongoing coordination mechanisms, nor is he privy to the intelligence-driven measures currently in place. Yet, his assertions are often delivered with a level of certainty that suggests otherwise.

In a field as sensitive as aviation security, this gap between perception and access matters. Governments across the world do not, and should not, publicly disclose the full extent of their security arrangements. The same applies in Nigeria. The absence of publicly available details is not evidence of inaction; it is a fundamental principle of security management. To interpret it otherwise, as Mr Ojikutu frequently does, is to misunderstand the discipline entirely.

Beyond the issue of accuracy lies an even more critical concern: the unintended consequences of alarmist commentary. When influential voices repeatedly describe national infrastructure as vulnerable, they do more than critique; they shape perception. Such narratives can undermine public confidence, affect airline and investor sentiment, invite unnecessary international scrutiny, and, most critically, provide hostile actors with a reinforced perception of opportunity. This is why words matter. In security discourse, they matter profoundly.

None of this is to suggest that experts should remain silent. On the contrary, informed and constructive critique is essential to strengthening institutions. But expertise must be demonstrated not just in what is said, but in how, when, and on what basis it is said. Mr Ojikutu, given his experience, should know this better than most.

What is required at this moment is not alarm, but alignment. Not speculation, but engagement. If there are genuine concerns, the appropriate course is to seek updated information, interface with relevant authorities, and contribute meaningfully to ongoing improvements; not to rely on residual knowledge and present it as current reality.

Nigeria’s aviation sector, under the guidance of the Ministry of Aviation and Aerospace Development and in coordination with agencies such as the Federal Airports Authority of Nigeria, continues to evolve in line with global best practices. These efforts are deliberate, continuous, and, where necessary, discreet. Security is not a spectacle; it is a system. And that system is strengthened not by recurring declarations of vulnerability, but by informed collaboration, responsible communication, and a shared commitment to national interest.

At a time when vigilance is paramount, we must ensure that our voices, especially those regarded as experts, do not become inadvertent instruments of the high risks we seek to prevent.

Henry Agbebire, Director, Public Affairs & Consumer Protection, FAAN, writes from Lagos.