Need to Trash Nigeria’s Shipping, Port Economic Regulatory Agency Bill
Eromosele Abiodun posits that the Nigeria Shipping and Port Economic Regulatory Agency 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
At a time when the federal government is reducing cost of governance and implementation of the Oronsaye Report, which recommended mergers of agencies whose functions overlap and constitute duplications, entrenched interest 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 to a muted squabble in Nigeria’s maritime sector as its regulators jostle for supremacy in a power play likely to undermine trade facilitation and afflict Nigeria’s maritime and shipping value chain with the unenviable status of an overregulated business environment.Sadly, the House of Representatives appears to be evolving as an interest group on this ill-motivated venture.
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 becreated from the bill in terms ofits functions and jurisdiction vis-à-vis other agencies in the maritime sector.
For instance, a thorough examination of the bill clearly shows that the powers and functions of the Nigerian Maritime Administration and Safety Agency (NIMASA) have been duplicated, considering that such functions as shipping regulation, issuance of certificates, licenses, fees, charges, and levies fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Nigerian Maritime Administration and Safety Agency. The bill failed to indicate how this will be remedied.
Even the agency has argued that 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, it says.
NIMASA is not alone as 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.’
For example, the Nigerian Ports Authority (NPA), while not opposed to the bill, has 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. It 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, 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.
A position paper presented by the agency 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.”
Conflict of interests and narrow articulation
It is worthy of note that following the port reforms programme andsubsequent 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.
Now, the process of enacting an appropriate law to streamline 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.
But experts have denounced this, stating that the house needed to trash the bill as it will result to inter agency rivalry and confusion.
Speaking with newsmen after a Public Hearing on the repeal of the Nigerian Shippers Council Act, Chairman of the Committee, Abdussamad Dasuki, explained that the Committee is still collating memoranda from various stakeholders on the bill before going ahead to present the report before the House of Representatives for third reading.
According to Dasuki said the bill seeks to repeal a law preventing NSC from enforcing a presidential directive concerning economic regulation of the ports.
He continued, “The bill is to repeal a law which is preventing the NSC from enforcing a presidential directive concerning economic regulation of the ports. The nation’s maritime industry is overdue for this, and we will see to its implementation.”
Quotes
“It is worthy of note that following the port reforms programme andsubsequent 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.”
“Now, the process of enacting an appropriate law to streamline 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.”
