Stakeholders Protest Collapse of Export Seats in Zone A Lagos

Stakeholders in the Nigeria export value chain which includes Shippers, Consignees, Freight Agents, Terminal Operators, Transporters, Shipping-lines and workers in the Nigeria export sector have appealed against some clauses in circular No 12 which announces the collapse of some export seats in Zone A, Lagos.

In a letter written by Adekunle Jones & Co and sighted by our Correspondent and directed to the Comptroller General, Nigeria Customs Service headquarters, the group stated that contentious paragraphs was capable of creating a coercive monopoly for enrichment of the personal interest of private individuals.

It added that the provision was also contrary to national interests which contravene existing Laws in Nigeria including Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act, CAP C25, LFN 2004, Nigeria Export Guidelines, Nigeria Export Supervision Scheme and the Harmonized Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for non-oil exports, for ports, Export Processing terminals EPTs and Domestic Export Warehouse among others.

Other implications as outlined in the letter include that it will create a bottleneck as the Lilypond Export Command does not have the facilities or capacity such as good road network, stacking space, technical equipment, manpower and physical possession of sea ports amongst others to merit the collapse of all Nigeria export in Lagos to a sole command/Lilypond Command.

The letter read, “The bottleneck and monopoly is contrary to the ease of doing business and will lead to congestion, racketeering, exploitation, extortion, round tripping, duplication of expenses and cost of Nigeria exports and economic sabotage of Nigeria.

” Smugglers would take advantage of the confusion and it will affect export of lawful items from t h e country.
” Possession of sea ports must go hand in hand with administration to checkmate illegalities, the opposite of which would further lead to needless, harsh policies that would negatively affect lawful exports which ought not to be in the first place where paragraphs 1 & 2 are critically reviewed in national interests.”