The usual suspects when airline ticket prices rise include shifting operational expenses, fluctuating foreign exchange, or Jet A1 charges. However, the ever-growing network of taxes imposed by the government is another increasingly significant culprit in Nigeria today.
The Nigeria Civil Aviation Authority (NCAA) has informed airlines that an additional Advance Passenger Information System (APIS) fee of $11.50 per international ticket will be collected starting on December 1, 2025.
According to the agency, the issuing carrier would collect and remit the fee at the point of sale. For many travelers, the new cost is merely the most recent addition to a lengthy series of taxes and surcharges that, when checked out, transform a headline fare into something quite different.
When combined, the ticket taxes are staggering. The typical foreign visitor to or from Nigeria today has to deal with a plethora of man-made fees, which frequently include:
The Federal Airports Authority of Nigeria (FAAN) levies the Passenger Service Charge (PSC), which is typically stated as $100 per international passenger from non-West African nations or $80 for West African countries.
Current NCAA security fee: Prior to the APIS hike, this long-standing security fee was typically reported at $20 per international ticket.
Passengers are also required to pay the Ticket Sales Charge (TSC), a percentage levy equal to roughly 5% of the ticket value.
The NCAA added $11.50 to the APIS fee on December 1, 2025.
When service fees, airline surcharges, and foreign exchange-driven rate rises are taken into account, independent analysts claim that the total cost of a ticket for a Nigerian resident traveling abroad can approach—and frequently surpass—$150. With that number, Nigeria is among the most expensive countries in Africa for taxed air travel.
The NCAA has presented the APIS levy as a security and border management project. According to the agency, the system’s data will be utilized to pre-screen travelers and establish a single-window approach for airport agencies. The levy is meant to serve as a cost-recovery mechanism for the upkeep and operation of the system, according to the authority. The levy will be in effect for 20 years.
Even with that justification, there are significant concerns about the accountability and the math. Several outlets calculated that the NCAA could receive between $46 and $49 million annually from the APIS levy using pre-existing passenger traffic figures. This stream would add up to almost $1 billion over a 20-year period (estimates usually range from $989 million to $1.0 billion depending on exchange-rate assumptions). These amounts are enormous, dwarfing many single-year allocations that are frequently addressed in budgeting for the aviation industry.
At Lagos’s Murtala Muhammad International Airport, it spent several hours talking to travelers about the practical implications of the additional fee. Their voices convey the frustration and confusion that many people who already have limited travel funds experience:
One young man in line to check in said, “I’m traveling for my sister’s graduation.” “That additional $11.50 may not seem like much, but it turns as a second ticket when you factor in the PSC and airport taxes. It’s not fair.
“We pay VAT, ticket charges, security levies – and now this,” said a businesswoman traveling to London. You feel as though your whole existence is being taxed.
“Pensioners travel on small budgets,” said an elderly couple returning from vacation. Due to airfare rises, we had to cancel once; these fees are turning travel into a luxury.
“If prices keep rising, young people will stop going abroad for study or work visits,” a student stated plainly while holding one backpack. This is a lack of vision.
These intimate photos highlight the fact that the discussion is social and economic as well as financial. Increased ticket costs run the danger of decreasing outbound travel, rerouting transit traffic to other West African hubs, and putting pressure on airlines that are already struggling with narrow profit margins. Stacked taxes reduce competition and may encourage travelers to take flights through neighboring nations with lower taxes, according to a number of carriers and industry leaders.
The main issue is accountability, which goes beyond the load on travelers. For what is essentially a cost-recovery mechanism, the NCAA has set the charge to continue for twenty years.
It asked the regulator how the money would be ring-fenced. Which audit, governance, and public reporting systems will direct the expenditure? Will the fee be evaluated on a regular basis in relation to real APIS operating costs and passenger volumes? Who will be in charge of the system’s project procurement? These questions are yet unresolved. The NCAA was contacted for comment, but as of the time of writing, no response had been received.
There are other, more detailed questions that require clear responses. For instance: Duplication and overlap: How would APIS relate to the duties of the Nigeria Immigration Service (NIS) and other organizations as well as the current security levies? Is the goal really to simplify if numerous agencies examine passenger data, or is it just to collect additional fees?
Equity and exclusions: According to the NCAA memo, newborns, diplomats, and crew are excluded. Will there be more relief categories (students, Nigerians in the diaspora traveling for medical reasons), and how will exemptions be implemented to prevent abuse?
Economic impact modeling: What independent analysis was done to determine how the charge affected passenger demand, airline routing choices, and the larger tourism and expatriate remittance industries?
Transparency across the 20-year period: A two-decade collecting plan necessitates thorough, continuous public reporting rather than a single document. Will the NCAA release project updates, audited accounting, and yearly receipts?
Both industry associations and consumers have argued that new charges should only be implemented following extensive stakeholder consultations, explicit transparency safeguards, and measurable increases in efficiency.
Speaking to other media, a number of airline executives emphasized that blanket tariffs are blunt tools that can backfire, penalizing regular travelers and diverting traffic away from nearby airports.
In theory, the NCAA’s declared objectives of enhanced border security and a single-window data system are uncontroversial. APIS or comparable systems are used in several nations. However, whether or not tax collection is subject to independent oversight and whether or not citizens can perceive the value for the money are the criteria for public acceptance.
This episode will be evaluated based on whether it replicates or deviates from Nigeria’s aviation sector’s historical struggles with opaque project funding and poor infrastructure follow-up.
Travelers will continue to experience pressure at the ticket counter for the time being. When combined with the PSC, TSC, and other fees, the NCAA’s new $11.50 levy is minor in isolation but significant overall, which helps explain why the actual cost of flying from Nigeria is frequently more than many passengers anticipate.
The solution is straightforward in theory but difficult in practice if the regulator wants the public to trust a 20-year revenue plan: release the data, open the books, respond to inquiries, and repeatedly demonstrate how the funds enhance security and service rather than just filling accounts. Until then, the fee will resemble another unseen travel tax rather than a security enhancement.
