Introduction
The regulation of outer space activities has become increasingly important as more states and private actors participate in space exploration, satellite deployment, and commercial ventures beyond Earth. International treaties such as the Outer Space Treaty of 1967, the Liability Convention of 1972, and the Registration Convention of 1976 provide a framework for state responsibility and cooperation.[1]
However, national legislation is required to domesticate these obligations and regulate private sector involvement. Nigeria’s National Space Research and Development Agency (NASRDA) Act 2010 and the United Kingdom’s Space Industry Act (SIA) 2018 represent two distinct approaches to national space governance.[2]
While the NASRDA Act provides a foundational framework for Nigeria’s space program, the SIA 2018 is a modern, comprehensive statute that addresses licensing, liability, insurance, and criminal jurisdiction.[3] This paper appraises the differences between the two Acts, evaluates their implications, and makes recommendations for reform in Nigeria.
Definition of Space Activities
The UK Space Industry Act 2018 begins by clearly defining what constitutes “spaceflight activities.” This includes launching, operating, and returning spacecraft, as well as managing spaceports and range control. Such clarity ensures that regulators, operators, and courts know exactly which activities fall under the law’s jurisdiction.[4]
By contrast, Nigeria’s NASRDA Act 2010 does not define industry-specific terms such as “space data,” “spaceflight,” or “satellite applications.” Instead, it only defines general administrative terms like “agency” or “chairman.”[5] This lack of precision creates ambiguity, making it difficult to interpret the law consistently and discouraging private sector actors who require legal certainty before investing in space ventures.
Licensing and Sanctions
Under the UK Act, licensing is mandatory for any entity wishing to engage in space activities. Section 3 criminalises false statements made during licence applications and prohibits unlicensed operations.[6] This creates a strong deterrent against illegal or unsafe practices, ensuring that only qualified operators participate in space activities.
Nigeria’s NASRDA Act, however, merely empowers the National Space Council to grant licenses but does not specify penalties for failing to obtain one.[7] Without sanctions, operators could potentially bypass licensing requirements, exposing Nigeria to liability under international law. This gap undermines regulatory authority and weakens Nigeria’s ability to enforce compliance.
Public Safety Notices
The UK Act requires that notices be sent to individuals and businesses located within a “range” of areas potentially affected by spaceflight activities.[8] This proactive measure ensures that communities are informed of risks and can take precautions.
It reflects a preventive approach to safety, reducing the likelihood of accidents and public harm. Nigeria’s NASRDA Act, in contrast, only requires regulators to ensure that licenses will not jeopardise lives or property.[9] While this is important, it is reactive rather than preventive. Without mandatory public notices, communities near launch sites may remain unaware of potential hazards, increasing the risk of harm and liability.
Risk Assessment
The UK Act obliges applicants for space activity licenses to conduct risk assessments, considering both public health and the health of personnel directly involved in space operations.[10] This holistic approach ensures that workers are protected alongside the general public. It also aligns with international best practices in occupational safety.
Nigeria’s NASRDA Act does not contain a similar provision.[11] Its concern for safety is limited to the general public, ignoring the risks faced by engineers, scientists, and astronauts. This omission could discourage skilled professionals from participating in Nigeria’s space program, as their health and safety are not legally safeguarded.
License Revocation and Transfer
Flexibility is a hallmark of the UK Act, which empowers regulators to revoke, vary, or approve the transfer of licenses.[12] This ensures that licenses remain valid only when operators comply with regulations and allows for smooth transitions during mergers or acquisitions.
Nigeria’s NASRDA Act, however, is silent on revocation or transfer.[13] Once a license is granted, there is no statutory mechanism to withdraw it in cases of misconduct or to transfer it in corporate restructuring. This rigidity undermines regulatory oversight and complicates business operations, discouraging private sector investment in Nigeria’s space industry.
Liability
The UK Act imposes liability on operators for damages caused during space activities, unless they can demonstrate substantial compliance with the law.[14] This balances responsibility between the state and private actors, ensuring accountability while encouraging compliance. Nigeria’s NASRDA Act contains no such provision.[15]
Liability for damages rests solely on the Nigerian state under the Liability Convention, even when private operators are at fault. This exposes Nigeria to significant financial risks and discourages private sector participation, as operators are shielded from responsibility. Reform is necessary to shift part of the liability burden onto operators.
Insurance
Recognising the high risks and costs of space activities, the UK Act mandates that operators obtain insurance against prescribed risks.[16] This protects both the state and the public from financial losses in the event of accidents. Insurance also reassures investors and communities that risks are managed responsibly.
Nigeria’s NASRDA Act does not require insurance, leaving the government fully exposed to liability claims.[17] Without insurance provisions, Nigeria risks bearing the full financial burden of accidents, which could cripple its space program. Introducing mandatory insurance would strengthen Nigeria’s regulatory framework and attract private investment.
Criminal Offences
The UK Act extends criminal jurisdiction to offences committed in spacecraft launched from the UK.[18] Acts that would constitute crimes on Earth, such as assault or theft, are also punishable if committed in space. This ensures that space activities remain subject to the rule of law and prevents legal loopholes.
Nigeria’s NASRDA Act is silent on criminal offences, leaving uncertainty about how misconduct in space would be addressed.[19] Without criminal provisions, Nigeria lacks jurisdiction to prosecute offences committed during space missions, undermining its ability to maintain discipline and order in space operations.
Implications for Nigeria
The absence of clear definitions, sanctions, liability provisions, insurance requirements, and criminal jurisdiction in Nigeria’s NASRDA Act has far-reaching consequences. First, Nigeria is fully exposed to liability under international law, as the state bears responsibility for damages caused by private operators.
[20] Second, the lack of legal certainty discourages private sector investment, hindering Nigeria’s ambition to develop independent launch capacity. Third, personnel safety is compromised, reducing the attractiveness of Nigeria’s space program to skilled professionals. Fourth, the absence of criminal provisions creates a legal vacuum, leaving misconduct unpunished. Collectively, these weaknesses undermine Nigeria’s ability to compete globally in the space industry.
Recommendations
Nigeria must urgently reform the NASRDA Act to align with international best practices. Industry-specific terms should be defined to eliminate ambiguity. Licensing provisions must be strengthened with sanctions for non-compliance. Risk assessments should be mandated for both public and personnel safety.
The National Space Council should be empowered to revoke and transfer licenses, ensuring flexibility and regulatory oversight. Operators must be held liable for damages, supported by mandatory insurance to protect the state and public. Criminal provisions should be introduced to extend Nigerian jurisdiction into space.[21] These reforms will not only protect Nigeria from liability but also encourage private sector participation, fostering growth in the national space industry.
Conclusion
The UK’s Space Industry Act 2018 represents a modern, comprehensive approach to space governance, balancing innovation with accountability. Nigeria’s NASRDA Act 2010, while foundational, is outdated and inadequate for the demands of contemporary space activities.
Without reform, Nigeria risks liability exposure, weak private sector confidence, and limited capacity for independent space operations.[22] By adopting provisions similar to those in the UK Act, Nigeria can strengthen its legal framework, safeguard national interests, and position itself as a serious player in the global space industry. Reforming the NASRDA Act is not just desirable; it is essential for Nigeria’s future in space exploration.
REFERENCES
[1] Outer Space Treaty, 1967.
[2] NASRDA Act, 2010 (Nigeria).
[3] UK Space Industry Act, 2018, Section 3.
[4] NASRDA Act, 2010, Section 9.
[5] UK Space Industry Act, 2018, Sections 5–6.
[6] Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), Section 12.
[7] UK Space Industry Act, 2018, Section 9.
[8] NASRDA Act, 2010, Section 9(2)(b).
[9] UK Space Industry Act, 2018, Section 15.
[10] NASRDA Act, 2010.
[11] UK Space Industry Act, 2018, Section 34.
[12] Liability Convention, 1972.
[13] UK Space Industry Act, 2018, Section 38.
[14] Kofo O. (2019). A Call for the Review of NASDRA Act. Olisa Agbakoba Legal.
[15] UK Space Industry Act, 2018, Sections 51–58.
[16] NASRDA Act, 2010.
[17] Brownlie, I. Principles of Public International Law.
[18] Ladan, M. T. Materials and Cases on Public International Law.
[19] Shaw, M. N. International Law.
[20] Ibid
[21] Ibid
[22] Ibid
Author:
Job Joseph, DL, LL.B(Hons) ABU Zaria