NAIROBI, Kenya, Oct 21 – Before passengers fund border technology, the public record should connect the fee, contract, data rules, performance, audit and transfer plan.
Across Africa, passenger charges help finance airports, aviation safety, immigration services and border technology. Such charges are not inherently good or bad. Their legitimacy depends on whether travellers understand what they are paying for and whether public institutions can account for how the money is collected and spent.
Before a passenger-funded border technology project begins, governments should publish a concise set of documents explaining the charge, the contractual arrangements, the handling of personal data and the expected results. The objective is not to expose sensitive security infrastructure, but to give the public enough information to assess whether a charge has a clear legal basis and delivers a defined public service.
Seven disclosures should form the foundation of that record.
1. A complete fee notice
Governments should publish the legal authority for the charge, its amount, effective date, applicable journeys, exemptions, collection method and refund rules. The notice should identify the responsible public office and explain whether the charge is incorporated into an airline ticket or collected separately at the airport.
Clear instructions would help travellers distinguish an approved charge from a proposal that has not taken effect. They would also reduce confusion and the risk of passengers paying twice because airlines, airports and government agencies communicate different requirements.
2. A plain-language contract summary
Travellers do not need access to every technical annex in a border technology contract. They do, however, need to understand who is providing the service, how long the agreement runs, how the project is financed, what the contractor must deliver and how payments are calculated.
The summary should also explain who owns the equipment and other assets, how the contract can be amended, and what happens when the agreement expires or is terminated.
Where a public-private partnership is involved, the government should identify the risks assigned to the private partner and those retained by the state. A revenue-sharing percentage alone cannot establish whether an arrangement offers value for money without information about the services provided, costs incurred and obligations assumed by each party.
3. A country-specific data schedule
Passenger-funded border systems may process Advance Passenger Information (API), Passenger Name Record (PNR) data and biometric information. These categories of information serve different purposes and can involve different collection, access and retention arrangements.
Governments should disclose who controls the data, which institutions and authorised personnel can access it, who processes it, where it is hosted and how long it is retained. The record should also identify who is responsible for responding to data breaches, maintaining audit logs and ensuring that information is deleted when legally required.
Contractual arrangements should address encryption keys, system credentials and the state’s ability to maintain lawful access when a contractor changes or an agreement ends.
General assurances about privacy and cybersecurity are not enough. The public record should establish which institution is accountable for each responsibility and how that accountability will be maintained throughout the contract.
4. A financial reconciliation method
Every passenger charge should be traceable from collection to its final destination. Governments should explain how individual transactions are reconciled against settlement statements, bank receipts, public accounts and any contractual revenue-sharing arrangement.
The method should account for exemptions, cancelled journeys, refunds and disputed transactions. It should also establish how discrepancies are investigated and resolved.
Quarterly disclosures could report the number of passengers charged, amounts billed and collected, arrears, the government’s share, payments for services and outstanding financial discrepancies. These figures can be published in aggregate without exposing passengers’ identities or travel histories.
Such reporting would allow the public to assess whether collections match the amounts received and whether the money is being allocated according to the approved arrangement.
5. A performance scorecard
A passenger-funded service should be assessed against measurable obligations, not simply the installation of equipment or the commencement of operations.
A public scorecard should report system availability, processing times, equipment uptime, repair response times, staff training, continuity testing and the completion of agreed milestones. Where payments depend on performance, the government should explain how results affect the amounts payable to the service provider.
Security-sensitive details need not be disclosed. Governments can publish aggregated results, performance bands or other measures that demonstrate whether contractual obligations are being met without compromising operational security.
A baseline is equally important. Without a record of performance before implementation, it becomes difficult to establish whether the technology has improved border processing or whether the service is meeting the standards for which passengers are paying.
6. Independent audits and follow-up
Independent audits can identify weaknesses in procurement, financial management, contract administration and service delivery. Their value, however, depends on whether the findings lead to corrective action.
Governments should publish the period covered by an audit, its recommendations, management responses, the institution responsible for implementation, deadlines and the results of subsequent verification.
The status of each finding should be clear: outstanding, under implementation or closed following verification. This would prevent unresolved weaknesses from disappearing from public view while also ensuring that findings corrected through documented action are not presented indefinitely as current failures.
7. A transfer and exit plan
Long-term technology contracts can leave governments dependent on private providers if they do not adequately plan for the transfer of systems, knowledge and operational responsibility.
Before implementation, the state should publish a summary of how assets, technical documentation, system configurations, credentials, manuals, recoverable data and trained personnel will be transferred when the contract expires or the provider changes.
The plan should cover data portability, staff capacity, spare parts, service continuity and assistance to a successor provider. Sensitive credentials and technical configurations can remain protected, but the existence of clear transfer obligations should be publicly documented.
Transfer arrangements should also be tested during the contract rather than left until the final months. This would give government time to identify gaps and reduce the risk of service interruptions or avoidable dependence on the outgoing contractor.
Transparency is operational infrastructureThe World Bank’s framework for public-private partnership disclosure supports proactive publication of project information, contracts or contract summaries, procurement decisions and performance records. International Civil Aviation Organization standards and guidance on API and PNR also provide an important basis for understanding passenger data requirements and the need to address data protection.
These principles point to a practical conclusion: disclosure should be built into the design of passenger-funded border technology projects, not treated as an administrative task after implementation.
A clear fee notice helps passengers understand what they owe. A contract summary makes obligations visible. A country-specific data schedule establishes accountability for personal information. Financial reconciliation demonstrates where the money goes, while performance reporting and independent audits help determine whether the service delivers what was promised. A transfer plan protects the state’s ability to maintain operations beyond the life of a contract.
Governments can protect sensitive security information without withholding the basic records needed for public accountability. They can also protect passenger privacy while publishing meaningful financial and performance data.
Passengers should not have to choose between effective border security and transparency. A properly designed disclosure framework makes the two compatible by ensuring that the public can understand the charge, institutions can account for the money and governments retain control over the systems on which border operations depend.
