The Sea Empowerment & Research Centre SEREC, a policy advocacy body has taken a swipe at private Bonded Terminal operators over the alleged imposition of illegal terminal charges amounting to N178million over time, which accumulated from an alleged N6, 00 per container unapproved payment.

Meanwhile, the body has equally condemned shipping lines operating in the country over the poor handling of empty container deposit refunds, holding-bay capacity, truck immobilisation, especially their inability to refund deposits as at when due. It therefore urged appropriate regulatory bodies, maritime industry stakeholders and operators to pay close attention to these developments.

According to a statement dated August 14, 2026 and signed by the head of the Research Unit of the Centre, Chief Eugene Nweke, “though these developments are not being presented as established facts, competent regulatory authorities should establish the facts, determine the legality or otherwise of the charges, identify the beneficiaries and establish the actual financial exposure.

“Importantly, SEREC is not presenting the allegations as established facts. The competent regulatory authorities must establish the facts, determine the legality or otherwise of the charges, identify the beneficiaries and establish the actual financial exposure. However, the issues raised are sufficiently significant to warrant a broader policy conversation”, the report noted.

The report further noted that in trying to interrogate the issues, the regulators and stakeholders should address some fundamental questions which include, who should bear the cost when any component of the port logistics chain fails to deliver the service or facility necessary to complete a cargo transaction?

It also argued that this question goes beyond the various professional associations including the National Association of Government Approved Freight Forwarders NAGAFF, Association of Nigerian Licensed Customs Agents ANLCA, and indeed, any individual terminal or any particular shipping line, as it concerns the integrity of Nigeria’s port economic architecture.

The report also argued that the timing of these developments has particularly become significant because the country has entered a new phase of port economic regulation following Presidential assent to the Nigerian Ports Economic Regulatory Agency NPERA, Bill, 2026.

“The new statutory framework is expected to strengthen economic regulation of the port sector, including areas such as tariffs, competition, licensing and commercial disputes. SEREC welcomes this development.

“Indeed, SEREC had previously advocated the urgent establishment of a modern, transparent and professionally managed port economic regulatory framework, warning that the absence of a dedicated statutory economic regulator could undermine Nigeria’s aspiration to become a competitive maritime and logistics hub. The emergence of NPERA therefore presents an important opportunity.

“However, SEREC also offers a caution: Legislative muscle must translate into measurable operational discipline. Nigeria does not merely need a new regulatory institution. She needs a regulatory system capable of ensuring that every legitimate charge is identifiable; every service is measurable; every delay has an accountable cause; very payment is traceable; every licensed operator meets prescribed standards; and that every port user receives value commensurate with legitimate charges imposed.

“The reported allegation concerning an alleged ₦6,000 per-container charge and the demand for refund of approximately ₦178 million should be subjected to proper documentary and regulatory investigation. The essential questions should include: was the ₦6,000 charge actually imposed?

“Who introduced or authorised it? What service did it represent? Was it compulsory or voluntary? Was it contained in the approved terminal tariff? Was it reflected on an official invoice or receipt? Who collected the money? Who ultimately received or benefited from it? What accounting records support the reported ₦178 million? Was any association involved in the collection or administration of the charge? Was the charge known to or approved by the relevant regulator? What remedy is appropriate if the charge is established to have been unauthorised?

“These questions should be answered by evidence rather than competing narratives. SEREC therefore urges restraint by all parties and confidence in the regulatory process. SEREC considers this controversy an opportunity to reaffirm a basic principle of port economics; compulsory charge should correspond to an identifiable service, facility, statutory obligation or legitimate contractual entitlement.”

“The basic chain should be: SERVICE RENDERED 🔜 APPROVED BASIS 🔜 TRANSPARENT CHARGE 🔜 OFFICIAL INVOICE 🔜 TRACEABLE PAYMENT 🔜 ACCOUNTABLE BENEFICIARY. Where that chain is absent, the charge deserves regulatory scrutiny. Association membership dues, subscriptions, professional contributions or legitimately approved organizational fees should not be confused with compulsory transaction-linked charges imposed upon cargo owners, consignees or freight-forwarders.

“This distinction is essential to maintaining professional integrity. THE HIDDEN COST OF “SMALL” CHARGES. SEREC is concerned about the cumulative effect of numerous small charges within the Nigerian port environment. A ₦2,000 charge may appear insignificant. A ₦5,000 charge may appear manageable. A ₦6,000 charge may similarly appear inconsequential.

“But when several such charges accumulate across documentation, handling, storage, access, truck movement, delivery and other stages of the logistics chain, the aggregate becomes a significant component of the landed cost of cargo.

“This is how a port can gradually become expensive without any single charge appearing extraordinary. Accordingly, port competitiveness must be assessed by the total cost of moving cargo through the system—not merely by the individual tariff of a single service provider”, the report asserted

In terms of the responsibility of the terminal operators, the Centre noted that it considers terminal operators central to this conversation, adding that a professionally managed terminal should be capable of accounting for every compulsory charge imposed within its operational environment.

It further argued that where a third party, association, service provider or interest group collects money from cargo interests in connection with terminal operations, the terminal should be able to explain; who authorised the collection; what service it represents; whether the charge is compulsory; whether it is published; whether it appears in the approved tariff; who receives the proceeds; how it is invoiced; how it is accounted for; and what measurable value the payer receives.

The report further said: “The terminal operating environment must not become a platform for parallel charging. SEREC is particularly concerned that informal charging structures, where they exist, can create incentives for preferential treatment, artificial delays, service syndication, rent-seeking and other forms of operational distortion.”

While commenting on the bonded terminal dimension, it noted that this dimension requires special attention, since a bonded terminal is not merely a licensed warehouse, rather, an integral component of the cargo-clearance and logistics chain and should possess the minimum infrastructure, equipment, operational capacity, security arrangements and service capability necessary to discharge its responsibilities.

It noted that concerns over the operational capacity and charging practices of bonded terminals are not entirely new. Similar concerns have previously included inadequate equipment, storage limitations, examination delays and accumulation of demurrage and related costs, which reinforces the need for regulators to periodically ask questions such as does the terminal still meet the operational conditions under which its license was granted?

The Centre argued that the present ₦6,000-per-container controversy and the reported empty-container crisis should therefore be treated as an opportunity for reflection rather than another episode in the recurring cycle of accusation and counter-accusation within the Nigerian port industry, adding that the reported ₦178 million claim, if established, would be significant.

It further observed that the reported detention and empty-container challenges are equally significant, noting that the greater issue remains the cumulative effect of operational inefficiencies and questionable charges on the cost of doing business in Nigeria.

It therefore called for a new regulatory culture in which every charge must have a basis, every service must have standard components, every delay must have a cause, and every cost must have an accountable bearer or cost function, insisting that the enactment of NPERA provides the country with an opportunity to institutionalise this principle.