Mixed Reactions Trail Nigeria Shipping, Port Economy Regulatory Bill

At a time when the federal government is trying reducing the cost of governance and implementation of the Oronsaye Report, which recommended mergers of agencies whose functions overlap and constitute duplications, entrenched interests are looking to sabotage this effort with the Nigeria Shipping and Port Economic Regulatory Agency Bill.

The clandestine moves to force the bill through the national assembly has resulted in a muted squabble in Nigeria’s maritime sector as regulators jostle for supremacy.

The supremacy fight may likely undermine trade facilitation and afflict Nigeria’s maritime and shipping value chain with the unenviable status of an over-regulated business environment.

Consequently, stakeholders in the maritime sector have called on the federal government to stand its grounds and fully implement the Oronsaye report and save the country the huge cost of governance.

The House of Representatives Committee on Shipping Services and Related Matters had on Monday, May 27, 2024 held a one-day hearing to gauge public feedback and input on repealing the Nigerian Shippers Council (NSC) Act (Cap N133, LFN 2004) as prelude to enacting the Nigerian Shipping and Port Economic Regulatory Agency Bill.

The Nigerian Shipping and Port Economic Regulatory Agency Bill 2023, with the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Tajudeen Abass, as lead sponsor, passed its second reading in March 2024.

One of the bill’s sponsors and Chairman, House Committee on Shipping Services and Related Matters, Hon. Abdussamad Dasuki, quoting a gazette, said the Nigerian Shippers’ Council was made the Port Economic Regulator in 2015 by the federal government, a status that needs formalising through legislation.

“The federal government noted that the objective of the regulation is to create an effective regulatory regime for the Nigerian ports after the concession of the ports. Port does not mean the Nigerian Ports Authority alone. It also means all the stakeholders in the ports, for the control of tariffs, rates, charges and other related economic services” Dasuki said on Wednesday 14th February 2024, while presenting the Bill to the House of Representatives.

Specifically, he added, “The shippers’ council’s gazette is being implemented today as a regulation and not as an Act. The Regulations provided that the Nigerian Shippers’ Council shall perform the role of interim Port Economic Regulator with the administrative backing of the federal government.”

Repealing the existing Nigerian Shippers’ Council Act, he concluded, is to empower the NSC to discharge its mandate as the Port Economic Regulator, adding that collation of memoranda from various stakeholders is ongoing prior to tabling a report before the House of Representatives for third reading.

Dissenting Voices

There are, however, contrary positions in various quarters, not necessarily against the passage of the Nigerian Shipping and Port Economic Regulatory Agency Bill, but against misrepresentation of the agency to be created from the bill in terms of its functions and jurisdiction vis-à-vis other agencies in the maritime sector.

For instance, a thorough examination of the bill clearly showed that the powers and functions of the Nigerian Maritime Administration and Safety Agency (NIMASA) have been duplicated.

On his part, the president, National Council of Managing Director of Licensed Customs Agents (NCMDLCA), Lucky Amiwero, said the bill usurping powers and conflict will create obstacles to implementation.

He, however, warned that existing legislation should not be duplicated or overridden by provision.

“The bill contains clauses that conflicts with other agency especially NPA 42-(a)  usurping the powers of Licensing of port Service and facilities, is that of the Landlord, who is the owner of the Land , who lease/ the Land, that is Nigerian Port Authority and partial owner  of the Leased/ concession  facilities ,  Clause 2(d)(e)(g) 4-(h),(o)(p)4-(2) Clause 28-(c)(d)(e) Clause 38-(1)(a) (b)(c)(d)

“Usurping powers and conflict will create obstacles to implementation; existing legislation should not be duplicated or overridden by provision. Under Clause 70 contains the interpretation of various terms Prescribed Service, means a Person, body or Agencies which is prescribed by this bill as such; or Providing prescribed Service in Nigeria within the Meaning of Section 38 of this bill and includes: Nigerian Railways Corporation; Nigerian Ports Authority; National Inland Waterways Authority and other agencies providing regulated service of any nature in the regulated sector in Nigeria.

“The Port Regulator is not to duplicate registration, Licensing, Permit, that is not their function, they should not usurp powers of other agencies , but should limit  their function to the Regulation of Economic interest,” he stated.

According to a clearing agent, Chukwuma Onyeka, functions such as shipping regulation, issuance of certificates, licences, fees, charges, and levies fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the NIMASA and the bill failed to indicate how this will be remedied.

“The bill, in its present form, is a contradiction of the presidential policy specifically aimed at reducing cost of governance and implementation of the Oronsaye Report, which recommended mergers of agencies whose functions overlap and constitute duplications. There is need for revision,” Chukwuma stated.

Aside from NIMASA, other agencies under the Ministry of Marine and Blue Economy are also demanding for ‘revision of the existing approach of operation guiding the agencies over the years.’

Speaking about the new bill, a member, Importers Association of Nigeria (IMAN), Kennedy Ikemefuna, said the bill usurped other agencies in the ministry’s functions.

“For example, the bill highlighted the confusion that may ensue due to the combination of ‘Ports’ and ‘Shipping’ in a regulatory agency, and demanded for proper phrasing of the roles of the agencies to avoid encroachment and infringement.

He also emphasised the need for the agency, which should be named the, “Nigeria Port Economic Regulatory Agency,” for clarity to avoid duplicating the functions of other players in the sector.

“In addition, the NPA, as landlord agency, is saddled with granting of concessions to the concessionaire, under the statutory regulation and monitoring of the Infrastructure Concession and Regulatory Commission (ICRC), meaning that the review of concessions, and indeed collection of all or part of the concession fees as in Section 28 of the bill cannot be the business of the proposed new Ports Economic Regulator,” Ikemefuna stated.

Meanwhile, a position paper presented by the Nigerian Ports Authority (NPA), said, “The intent and import of the Nigeria Shipping and Port Economic Regulatory Agency Bill is Policy. It therefore must be driven by the sector policy arm of the executive – the Federal Ministry of Marine and Blue Economy.  The function of parliament here is to facilitate seamless implementation of established policy by enacting the intent of the operators.”

It is worthy of note that following the port reforms programme and subsequent concessioning of the ports, there was consensus among stakeholders on the need to establish an economic regulator for the ports to provide a competitive and conducive environment for commercial activities in the industry.

Consequently, various versions of a bill to create this agency were developed and presented for legislative action in the 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th National Assemblies. However, none yielded the desired outcome due to conflict of interests and narrow articulation.

In response, the federal government in 2014 signed an Executive Order that made the Nigeria Shippers’ Council an interim economic regulator for the ports pending the enactment of an Act.

Meanwhile, contrary to experts view, the House of Representatives Committee on Shipping Services and Related Matters recently said the Nigerian Shipping and Port Economic Regulatory Agency Bill will curb arbitrary charges and other illegality of operators in the nation’s maritime industry when passed into law. But experts have denounced this, stating that the house needed to stop further deliberation of the bill as it will result to inter agency rivalry and confusion.