Until the recent impasse, few Ghanaians knew that Ghana had been managing the airspace of West Africa since 1945.

Airspace is “the part of the sky where planes fly, usually the part above a particular country that is legally controlled by that country”.

In the context of West Africa and the matter under review, airspace is “the combined upper space, 240 feet and above, and large portions of the Atlantic Ocean of Ghana, Nigeria, Togo and Benin”.

For purposes of managing that airspace, a Common Airspace Managing Centre was established in Accra, Ghana’s capital, in 1945.

That area that the airspace management programme covers is known as Flight Information Region (FIR) which was/is airspace of Ghana, Nigeria, Togo and Benin.

Why is it necessary for neighbouring countries of West Africa to combine their airspace management programmes?

Air travel is a complex, risky and accident-prone business. Therefore, the need to control flights through supply of airspace information is paramount to ensure safety and national security.

The Flight Information Region, which has its headquarters in Accra, was strategically designed and recognised for international flights – 70 years ago.

About four months ago, Togo and Benin notified Ghana that they had decided to pull out of the 70-year-old FIR.

Their decision to withdraw was, however, rescinded after an emergency meeting in Accra. That meeting was attended by President John Mahama of Ghana, President Faure Gnassingbe of Togo and President Yayi Boni of Benin.
At the meeting, the three presidents deliberated and decided on how best to manage their countries’ common Airspace Flight Information Centre in Accra.

President Gnassingbe and President Boni told a press conference after the meeting that the three countries had signed a memorandum of understanding in 2008 but the agreement was not fully implemented to cover all the issues raised by Togo and Benin.

That was why the two countries decided to withdraw from the Accra FIR and to transfer their airspace management to Agency for Aerial Navigation Safety in Africa and Madagascar (ASECNA), an air-flight control outfit based in Dakar, Senegal.

President Mahama was reported to have said that he “called this meeting to discuss the issues of concern to both countries and also to demonstrate our commitment to maintain the Accra Flight Information Region as a single entity”.

The core of the problem arising appears to be about how proceeds from management of the Accra FIR should be shared. Togo and Benin had reportedly complained that the Ghana Civil Aviation Authority (GCAA) in Accra did not distribute the revenue proportionately.

It is clear from the developments that Nigeria was not part of the new arrangement concerning management of the Accra FIR.
That creates the impression that Nigeria had pulled out.

From early this month, Nigerian newspapers began to disseminate reports that Nigeria had decided to break away from the 70-year FIR arrangement and to establish its own airspace management unit.

The reports said President Muhammadu Buhari of Nigeria had ordered, with immediate effect, the Ministry of Aviation to take over management of his country’s airspace from Ghana.

“We have a directive by the president to start the process of securing the management of Nigeria’s airspace over the Gulf of Guinea which Ghana had been maintaining since 1945…,” the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Aviation, Binta Bello, has said, according to the Daily Trust of Nigeria.

And the Africa Business Communities online reported that Nigeria had started the process of severing ties with Ghana over management of its airspace in the Gulf of Guinea.

The report by the Nigerian newspapers conflict with earlier ones. Last April, top officials of the GCAA led by its Director-General, Abdulai Alhassan, had met their counterparts in Lagos, Nigeria’s commercial capital, and it was there and then that the decision was made that Ghana and Nigeria should co-manage the Accra FIR.

That decision appeared to have set aside earlier arrangements by Nigeria to transfer to the Aerial Navigation Safety in Africa and Madagascar (ASECNA).
According to Mr Alhassan, ASECNA had not followed due process in its attempt to sectorise the Accra FIR airspace.

“It is our belief that ASECNA had not followed due process in its bid to sectorise the Accra airspace. It is a matter the bodies – ASECNA, GCAA and the Nigeria Airspace Management Agency (NAMA) – should discuss at a roundtable because of its regional safety and security implications; and the position of Ghana is that we co-manage the airspace rather than sectorise it,” Mr Alhassan said.

The Managing Director of NAMA, Ibrahim Abdulsalam, said his organisation was open to a peaceful and amicable resolution of civil aviation issues.
“We are committed to co-operating with both Ghana and ASECNA in our determination to ensure safety of the African sky,” Mr Abdulsalam said.
It appears from the developments that the deadlock has been broken and that GCAA, NAMA and ASECNA have agreed to co-manage the Accra FIR.

Meanwhile, Alhaji Asoma Banda, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of AntrakAir, an Accra-based airline, had complained about what he described as over-liberalising of Ghana’s airspace by the GCAA to the detriment of local airline operators.

He said West African countries that were signatories to an agreement on liberalisation of the airspace had not liberalised their airspace as much as Ghana had done.

Alhaji Banda cited, as an example, difficulties in obtaining overfly permits from some African countries.

He said some countries, including Nigeria, had refused to allow airlines from other West African countries to fly directly to their territories, unlike Ghana. Alhaji Banda said those countries had reserved direct flights to their countries for their local airline operators.
“Over-liberalising does not help us,” he said.