The Executive Secretary/CEO, of the Nigerian Shippers’ Council NSC, Dr Pius Akutah MON, has said that strong, clear, and enforceable laws remain a prerequisite for credible port economic regulation, insisting that the NSC Act Cap133 LFN, and the Presidential Order of 2015 are grossly inadequate for economic regulation of the country’s seaports in the current dispensation.

Akutah made the clarification when he delivered a paper entitled: ‘The Impact of Strong Law in Achieving Effective Port Economic Regulation in Nigeria’ at a one-day seminar organised in Lagos by the League of Maritime Editors LOME, with the theme: ‘Economic Benefits of Nigeria’s election as chairman of the World Customs Organisation WCO, Council’.

According to the NSC-boss, the Council has in the last few years operated with the two legal instruments in carrying out its regulatory functions at the nation’s seaports, regretting that both legal frameworks as they currently exist, are bereft of some necessary ingredients of economic regulation as obtained in other maritime jurisdictions across the globe.

“Competent laws, which align with institutional capacity and enforcement deliver measurable benefits, which include competition, investment, lower trade costs and predictability. Nigeria’s new standing at the WCO Council should be matched by domestic legal reforms and rigorous application to secure the full economic benefits of our ports”, he said.

On why the law matters, he argued that the law sets the foundations of predictability and fairness, arguing that the seaports are both marketplaces and bottlenecks.

He said: “The seaports are the focal point where public and private interests collide. Without clear rules, monopolies flourish, fees become opaque, concessions are abused and costs rise for importers and exporters. 

“For example, cargo dwell time in Nigerian ports is among the lengthiest in West Africa, averaging 20-25 days, compared to three-seven days on average in places like Cotonou, Tema, or Durban. This delay is largely due to bureaucratic bottlenecks, overlapping agencies, and lack of automation. The long dwell time increases demurrage and storage costs for importers/exporters.”

He however further argued that a strong law within the maritime industry would anchor institutional independence, as regulators are insulated from political pressure, like the UK’s Office of Rail and Road, which supervises port competition rules independently.

On Customs reforms and trade facilitation, he cited the World Trade Organisation’s WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement, which Nigeria has ratified, which shows how binding commitments to transparency and simplified border procedures can reduce delays and costs.

He also underscored the importance of labour stability and Safety and environment, citing the International Labour Organisation’s ILO, Maritime Labour Convention (MLC 2006), which ensures fair working conditions in ports, reducing strikes and disruptions and the MARPOL Convention as well as EU directives on port reception facilities show how environmental compliance laws prevent pollution while keeping ports attractive to global carriers.

“A modern port economic regulator requires a legal mandate that sets out the regulator’s objectives-efficiency, fair access, price oversight where appropriate, its powers-licensing, price review, market investigations, dispute resolution, and safeguards-transparency, appeal procedures, and clear standards for state support.

“The Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore Act provides a useful model: by statute it gives the regulator powers to create an economic regulatory framework that promotes and safeguards competition in port services and facilities. That legal clarity has been central to Singapore’s ability to run world-class, commercially vibrant, and sustainable ports”, Dr Akutah said. 

Citing international lessons, he said: “Legal design plus enforcement equals results. Let me give three short examples where legal frameworks and active enforcement helped deliver balanced markets and better outcomes: 

“Singapore — statutory regulator + commercial governance: Singapore’s legal framework (the MPA Act and supporting instruments) explicitly empowers the regulator to oversee port services, set licensing rules and coordinate land/sea logistics planning. The effect has been a predictable regulatory environment that attracts capital and supports efficient operations across terminals, pilotage and towage. The statutory approach links economic regulation to national maritime strategy (“A statutory regulator with clear legal powers creates predictability and investor confidence, aligning port operations with national maritime strategy”).

“European Union — state aid discipline and port investments: The EU has applied rigorous state-aid rules to port infrastructure spending, requiring transparency and compatibility with competition objectives before public support is given. The European Commission’s decisions and state-aid framework have constrained arbitrary subsidies that distort competition between ports and ensured that public funds are used consistently with the single market.

“For example, the European Commission’s state-aid decisions on port investments fix standards for notification, transparency and proportionality. This legal architecture reduces the risk of inefficient duplication and unfair competitive advantages (“Strict state-aid rules prevent distortion and ensure that public funds are used transparently and in line with competition objectives”).

“United States – Labour and Safety Frameworks: U.S. port regulation combines economic oversight with labour stability under laws like the Taft-Hartley Act, ensuring industrial peace in critical infrastructure. This shows how embedding labour law within port regulation sustains continuity in trade flows.”

While examining Nigeria’s situation in terms of the opportunities and the gaps, he observed that the country’s seaports are central to her national economy, citing areas of recurring friction, which include: congestion, disputes over terminal access and charges, and opaque concessioning and state support arrangements.

He further argued that if the country should imagine the WCO Chairmanship as an instrument of global influence, it must be paired with visible domestic reforms that demonstrate that Nigeria practices what she preaches on customs governance, transparency and commercial regulation. 

The NSC-Boss, who is a legal practitioner, listed some specific legal weaknesses in the country that require attention to include unclear economic regulatory mandate, which requires a statutory framework that clearly defines economic regulation for shipping and port services, across terminals, pilotage, towage and stevedoring. 

“For example; in Nigeria, multiple agencies overlap in regulating port tariffs and services. This often leads to conflicting directives. For instance, in 2019, freight forwarders protested contradictory tariff notices issued by NPA and terminal operators, causing confusion and delays in cargo clearance.

“Inadequate competition safeguards — rules to prevent anti-competitive coordination among dominant port service providers and to control discriminatory pricing or rebates. Example: Nigeria’s port system is dominated by a few terminal operators, and complaints of price-fixing and discriminatory rebates are frequent. In 2021, clearing agents accused some terminal operators of colluding to increase handling charges at Tin Can and Apapa ports, leaving shippers with little choice due to lack of competition.

“Opaque state support and concessions — legal rules for notification, transparency and competitive tendering for port infrastructure and concession contracts. Example: Since port concessioning in 2006, stakeholders have repeatedly raised concerns about the lack of transparency in concession renewals and state support. For example, concession agreements worth billions were renewed in 2021 without competitive bidding, prompting industry groups to call for more open tender processes.

“Weak dispute resolution mechanisms — specialised, speedy forums to resolve port commercial disputes and tariff complaints. Example: Disputes over port charges often clog Nigeria’s courts for years. In 2020, freight forwarders complained that unresolved tariff disputes were costing shippers millions in demurrage and storage fees as cases dragged on without timely resolution. This discourages smaller players who cannot afford prolonged litigation

“Addressing these gaps will foster private investment, reduce trade costs, and increase government revenue through more transparent concessioning and predictable tariffs”, he said. 

He therefore proposed the introduction of some legal instruments and principles to include but not limited to a Port Economic Regulation Act, which should be a single statute that defines the regulator’s objectives- promotion of efficiency, fair access and competition, grants licensing and investigative powers- empowering price monitoring and interim remedies where operators hold market power, and provides for transparent rule-making and appeal.

“The drive for this is already under way with the proposed Nigerian Port Economic Regulator Bill (NPERA Bill [currently awaiting Presidential assent]) where the Federal government seeks to properly equip the Nigerian Shippers Council, being the parastatal that is saddled with the responsibility of Port Economic Regulatory functions through A Presidential Order granted in 2015; to monitor pricing and provide for transparent rulemaking in the maritime industry”, Akutah said.