‘If It’s Not Broken, Why Fix It’ Brings Nigeria’s Proposed Coastguard Under Scrutiny

 As Nigeria grapples with diverse maritime threats, the recent proposal to establish a Coastguard has sparked debate across security and policy circles. While proponents argue that the new body will bolster maritime safety and economic security, critics warn of redundancy, inefficiency, and jurisdictional conflicts with the Nigerian Navy, as well as the burgeoning cost on an already over-bloated economy. Chiemelie Ezeobi writes that at the heart of the debate lies a critical issue of if Nigeria truly needs a separate Coastguard instead of adequately funding and empowering the already existing Nigerian Navy and other maritime agencies to continue to meet the nation’s maritime security needs

It was a folksy idiom that posited that “If it’s not broken, don’t fix it”, which literarily means one shouldn’t try to change something that’s working well. This idiom brings to the front burner the recent quest to establish a Nigerian Coastguard despite the statutory responsibilities of the Nigeria Navy to secure the nation’s territorial maritime integrity. 

To secure the maritime zones within Nigeria, the bill for a Coastguard was recently proposed. In fact, the bill has currently scaled second reading in the Senate. The bill to establish a Coastguard as a civilian-led agency was not only proposed to tackle the country’s pressing maritime security challenges, but to also enhance the enforcement of maritime laws, protect critical offshore installations, and bolster search-and-rescue capabilities. 

However, what the bill was silent on was on how it would overlap with the constitutional mandate of the Nigerian Navy and cost the nation scarce resources. 

Sponsored by Wasiu Eshilokun, he said amongst other things, the bill was also aimed at maintaining a state of readiness as a specialised service in support of the Nigerian Navy in war situations, but with a special focus on the country’s maritime interests and regional coastal security, as well as in adherence to global norms and standards as they relate to maritime security.

Also, the Deputy Senate President, Jibrin Barau, who presided over the plenary, said the bill would ensure that Nigeria’s territorial integrity was protected, adding that “This will also ensure that our defence is not jeopardised at the naval side”. Thereafter, he referred the bill to the Senate Committee on Marine Transport for further legislative actions and to report in four weeks, which is next week. 

What the Coastguard Bill Proposes 

The Coastguard Bill seeks to establish a new agency responsible for ensuring the security and governance of Nigeria’s waterways. According to its provisions, the proposed Coastguard would be tasked with Combating Maritime Crimes including piracy, armed robbery at sea, and other unlawful activities.

It also proposed to protect Offshore Infrastructure; safeguarding oil and gas facilities vital to Nigeria’s economy; carry out search-and-Rescue Operations; coordinate responses to maritime accidents and emergencies; regulate Maritime Activities; and enforce laws related to shipping traffic, environmental protection, and safety regulations.

Also, the Coastguard would operate as an independent civilian agency, headed by a Director-General appointed by the President, while its funding would come from federal allocations, levies on shipping operators, and international partnerships. 

With regional offices to be established in key coastal states, complementing a central headquarters in Abuja, the proposed Coastguard’s mandate while  appearing comprehensive, however significantly overlaps with the Nigerian Navy’s existing roles, raising questions about the necessity of creating a new maritime agency.

The Role of the Nigerian Navy in Maritime Security

As one of the three branches of Nigeria’s Armed Forces, the Nigerian Navy holds a constitutional mandate to protect the country’s maritime domain. Over the years, the navy has effectively combined military and constabulary functions to address a range of maritime security challenges but its key responsibilities include Enforcement of Maritime Laws where it plays a pivotal role in enforcing the Suppression of Piracy and Other Maritime Offences Act (SPOMO), which has been instrumental in curbing piracy and armed robbery in Nigerian waters.

Also, the navy protects Critical Infrastructure including offshore oil and gas facilities, which account for a significant portion of Nigeria’s revenue. Another role is in Search-and-Rescue Operations and the navy’s response capabilities include rescuing distressed vessels and crew members within Nigeria’s territorial waters and Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).

In terms of Surveillance and Monitoring, its Advanced systems like the Falcon Eye and the Maritime Domain Awareness provide the Navy with real-time monitoring of maritime activities, enhancing its ability to pre-empt and respond to threats.

The Navy also collaborates with other national and international stakeholders, such as the Nigerian Maritime Administration and Safety Agency (NIMASA), the Customs Service, and regional frameworks to combat transnational maritime crimes.

It is also pertinent to note that the NN is a brown water Navy capable of military operations in the littoral zone waters, which means they can protect vessels in the interior waters and those on the open water. Additionally, being a brown navy means they can use small gunboats and patrol boats and the capital ships to support them. 

 Already, in proving its competence in protecting and providing patrol for 4,000 navigable routes and 850 shorelines of Nigeria, the statutory responsibilities of the navy be it in military, diplomatic and policing roles have been called to bear either in seaward defence, deterrence, sea blockade, amphibious operations, strategic sealift operations or in diplomatic show of flags or prevention of illegal bunkering, pipeline vandalism and smuggling, as well as      Anti-piracy and sea robbery patrol, Fisheries protection patrol, Immigration and drug control patrol, Anti-pollution patrol and environmental protection, and Search and Rescue operations.

Criticisms of the  Coastguard Bill 

With all the above listed roles of the NN, it’s not surprising that maritime stakeholders and critics have argue that the establishment of a separate agency through the Coastguard Bill would duplicate the roles already performed by the Nigerian Navy, leading to jurisdictional confusion and operational inefficiencies. 

Chief amongst the points raised against the bill was the 

duplication of roles given that the Nigerian Navy already fulfils most of the functions envisioned for the Coastguard-from combating piracy to protecting offshore installations. Thus, establishing a new agency with overlapping responsibilities risks creating conflicts during operations and diluting accountability.

Also, given the resource constraints, setting up a Coastguard would require substantial investment in infrastructure, personnel, and equipment. To this end, those against the bill argue that these funds would be better allocated to strengthening the Navy’s existing capacities, which are already geared toward addressing Nigeria’s maritime security needs.

On the issue of Jurisdiction upon arrests, the lack of clear role delineation between the Navy and the proposed Coastguard could result in operational disputes, especially during critical incidents. Essentially, this confusion would undermine the unified response necessary for effective maritime governance, which most often than not, would lead to inter-agency rivalry. 

Already, the security landscape is often lodged  by competition among agencies, which hampers coordination and effectiveness. Adding a Coastguard to the mix, especially with overlapping functions, could exacerbate these issues, further fragmenting maritime security efforts.

According to former Chief of the Naval Staff, Vice Admiral Dele Ezeoba (rtd), the proposed Coast Guard Bill could duplicate the roles of the Nigerian Navy and create confusion, potential conflicts, and a weakened maritime security framework.

In an interview with ARISE NEWS after the bill scaled second reading, Ezeoba, while stating his strong reservations about the bill, described it as fundamentally flawed, arguing that its policies fail to address Nigeria’s specific maritime challenges, potentially introducing more problems than solutions.

He said there was doubt if a proper gap analysis was done because the Coast Guard’s outlined responsibilities closely mirror those of the Nigerian Navy, rendering its creation redundant. Citing specific sections of the bill, he said, “Part 1, Articles 2(a-i) clearly enunciate responsibilities that duplicate the Nigerian Navy’s functions.”

Ezeoba further warned that overlapping duties could lead to interagency conflicts, erode trust, and strain the armed forces’ already limited resources. “What it implies is complete anarchy in the maritime space,” he stated, suggesting that rather than solving existing issues, the bill could exacerbate them. “Every entity will be competing to secure and assert relevance,” he added. 

He further advocated for channeling resources toward strengthening the Nigerian Navy’s existing capabilities for a more unified and effective approach to maritime security.

Other stakeholders also worried about the lack of command and control structure, policy overlap with the Nigerian Navy, and other ambiguities the bill had, including not carrying stakeholders along. 

 Need to Take a Cue from Oronsaye Report

In 2012, the Presidential Committee on the Rationalisation and Restructuring of Federal Government Parastatals, Commissions, and Agencies, chaired by Stephen Oronsaye, identified the proliferation of government agencies as a major drain on Nigeria’s resources. The committee recommended the merger or dissolution of several agencies with overlapping functions to enhance efficiency and reduce costs.

Upon assumption of office of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, he gave credence to that report with plans to implement it. Thus, the establishment of a Coastguard runs counter to the Oronsaye Report’s recommendations of cutting cost of governance.

Way Forward 

Instead of creating a new agency, Nigeria should focus on optimising the performance of existing institutions, such as the Navy and NIMASA, which already have the mandate and capacity to address maritime security challenges.

Additionally, by  strengthening existing institutions rather than duplicating roles, the government would increase capacity through increased funding, improved training, and provision of modern equipment to ensure these institutions can effectively address maritime threats.

In terms of cost effectiveness, creating a new agency would impose significant financial burdens on an already strained national budget, which again buttresses the point that strengthening existing structures is a more cost-effective approach to achieving the same objectives.

As against a new fish in the pond, the government can enhance inter-agency coordination by establishing a joint maritime security task force, comprising the Navy, NIMASA, Customs, and other stakeholders, which would streamline operations and eliminate jurisdictional disputes. This should be done in such that the framework would leverage the strengths of each agency without creating new bureaucracies or overlapping responsibilities. 

Also, in leveraging technology, the government can expend and upgrade surveillance systems like Falcon Eye and the MDA to improve situational awareness and operational efficiency without the need for a Coastguard. This is because such technological advancements offer scalable solutions to maritime security challenges.

Meanwhile, at the regional level, Nigeria is already a key player in regional security initiatives such as the Yaoundé Code of Conduct and the Gulf of Guinea Maritime Collaboration Forum. Strengthening these partnerships would enhance collective security efforts and reduce the need for a separate Coastguard.

It is pertinent to state that establishing a Coastguard will bring about bureaucratic expansions. This is because creating a new agency adds layers of bureaucracy, which could slow decision-making processes and undermine the effectiveness of maritime governance.

As against proposing a Coastguard under the Ministry of Marine and Blue Economy, the ministry should be mandated to establish a National Shipping Line while creating a favourable environment for foreign vessels, as well as create more participation of Nigerians in the Cabotage instead of what is currently the practice.

Also, while countries like the United States and the United Kingdom operate both navies and coastguards, their contexts differ significantly as Nigeria’s current economic and security realities necessitate a more integrated approach, where existing institutions are empowered to fulfill their mandates effectively.

In the USA, many of her Naval fleets are stationed in international waters almost on permanent basis, hence the CoastGuard secures its territorial waters. Juxtaposing that with Nigeria, the nation does not have her Naval fleets stationed far away from home in international waters because of the resources involved, hence the restriction to 12nautical miles from shore), and backwaters. 

Essentially, while the idea of a dedicated Coastguard may seem attractive, it risks duplicating the roles of the Nigerian Navy, straining resources, and creating operational inefficiencies. Instead, Nigeria should focus on strengthening its existing institutions, fostering inter-agency collaboration, and leveraging technology to address its maritime challenges. Also, by adopting a pragmatic and cost-effective approach, Nigeria can enhance maritime security without creating unnecessary redundancies. The ultimate goal should be a secure and well-governed maritime domain that supports the country’s economic and security objectives.

Thus, while the proposal to establish a Coastguard may appear appealing at first glance, but a deeper analysis reveals significant risks of duplication, inefficiency, and resource misallocation.  Undoubtedly, the Nigerian Navy, with its constitutional mandate and existing capabilities, remains the most suitable institution to oversee maritime security, so by addressing gaps within the Navy and empowering other civilian agencies to handle complementary roles, Nigeria can achieve its maritime security goals without creating an unnecessary and costly new body. Essentially, if it’s not broken, don’t fix it. 

Quote

The bill is fundamentally flawed…the 

overlapping duties could lead to interagency conflicts, erode trust, and strain the armed forces’ already limited resources. What it implies is complete anarchy in the maritime space…rather than solving existing issues, the bill could exacerbate them. Every entity will be competing to secure and assert relevance