SPOTLIGHTS
- Stakeholders reject proposed shipping bill
- Concerns over cost of governance
- Fears of over-regulation
- Calls for revision and dialogue
- Experts warn of negative consequences
By Steve Agbota
_______
[email protected] 08033302331
MARITIME stakeholders have shredded the Nigeria Shipping and Port Economic Regulatory Agency Bill, insisting that the document, in its current form, is a worrisome contradiction of the presidential policy aimed at reducing the cost of governance. They also said that the bill, if clandestinely passed, would impede the smooth implementation of the Oronsaye report.
According to the stakeholders, there is a compelling need to tweak the document in order to eliminate overlapping functions identified therein. They noted that at a time the federal government was making efforts to reduce the cost of governance and implementation of the Oronsaye Report, which recommended mergers of agencies whose functions overlap and constitute duplications, entrenched interests seem to want to thwart the effort with the Nigeria Shipping and Port Economic Regulatory Agency Bill.
The moves to push the bill through the national assembly have resulted in a muted squabble in Nigeria’s maritime sector as regulators jostle for supremacy, which some fear may likely undermine trade facilitation and affect Nigeria’s maritime and shipping value chain with the unenviable status of an over-regulated business environment.
Consequently, stakeholders have called on the federal government to fully implement the Oronsaye report and save the country the huge cost of governance accentuated by injurious wastes.
The House of Representatives Committee on Shipping Services and Related Matters, recently held a one-day public hearing on repealing the Nigerian Shippers Council (NSC) Act (Cap N133, LFN 2004) as a prelude to enacting the bill which the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Tajudeen Abass, as lead sponsor, pushed to pass its second reading in March 2024.
One of the bill’s sponsors and chairman, House Committee on Shipping Services and Related Matters, 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 its concession. Port in this context 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. The shippers’ council’s gazette is being implemented as a regulation and not as an Act. The regulations provided that the council shall perform the role of interim port economic regulator with the administrative backing of the federal government,” Dasuki explained.
Repealing the existing Nigerian Shippers’ Council Act, he said, 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 a third reading.
Dissenting voices
There are, however, dissenting voices in various quarters, not necessarily against the 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 shows that the powers and functions of the Nigerian Maritime Administration and Safety Agency (NIMASA) would be duplicated.
Reacting to the bill, the president, National Council of Managing Director of Licensed Customs Agents (NCMDLCA), Lucky Amiwero, said the usurping of powers and conflict in the bill will create an obstacle to implementation.
He said: “The bill contains clauses that conflict with other agencies, especially the NPA. The powers of licensing of port service and facilities is that of the landlord, which is the NPA.
“The port regulator is not to duplicate registration, licensing or permit because it is not their function. They should not usurp the powers of other agencies, but should limit their function to the regulation of economic interest.”
A clearing agent, Chukwuma Onyeka, told Daily Sun that functions such as shipping regulation, issuance of certificates, licenses, fees, charges and levies fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of NIMASA and the bill fails to indicate how this will be remedied.
“The bill, in its present form, is a contradiction of the presidential policy specifically aimed at reducing the 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.
Besides 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 proper phrasing of the roles of the agencies to avoid encroachment and infringement,” he said.
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, 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 explained.
Meanwhile, a position paper presented by the NPA, said: “The intent 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 concession 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.
Now, the process of enacting an appropriate law to streamline the operational framework for the industry, particularly in port management, has become an exercise to overload the NSC with roles and powers well beyond the original purpose of an economic regulator.
Given the possibility of hitting the crossroads again arising from contradictory positions on the bill, perhaps the status quo should be allowed to remain, while consultations continue in order to avoid the fate of previous versions of the bill, which failed to see the light of the day.
It cannot be ruled out that personal gain, rather than national interest, may underpin the motivation of some persons pushing for enactment of the bill in its present form.
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.
However, experts have denounced this, stating that the House needed to stop further deliberation of the bill as it would result in agency rivalry and confusion.