With the successful enactment of the Nigerian Ports Economic Regulatory Agency (NPERA) Act, port users expect an overhaul of the maritime ecosystem and a clear delineation of responsibilities in the management and regulation of port concessions, ADAKU ONYENUCHEYA reports.

The Nigerian Ports Economic Regulatory Agency (NPERA) Bill has received the long-awaited presidential assent after years of delays and back-and-forth.

The NPERA seeks to regulate the maritime ecosystem by repealing the Nigerian Shippers’ Council (NSC) Act Cap N133, LFN 2004, and establishing a new agency with a clear legal mandate and backing.

It focuses on economic regulation, including a stronger and enforceable regulatory framework, better control of tariffs, rates and charges, promotion of fair competition, licensing and standards for service providers, effective commercial dispute resolution, greater transparency, accountability, predictability, improved investor confidence, lower logistics costs and protection of port users.

The framework is also expected to safeguard the economic interests of shippers and cargo owners while contributing to a more credible, competitive port environment that can position Nigeria as a stronger regional maritime and logistics hub.

However, for decades, Nigerian shippers, importers, exporters, manufacturers, freight forwarders, and licensed customs agents have tolerated poor-quality shipping and terminal services, as well as steep hikes in ocean freight rates imposed by foreign shipping lines operating at seaports.

The foreign shipping firms unilaterally increased freight rates on Nigerian-bound cargoes, averaging between 25 and 30 per cent yearly, in addition to the stifling port surcharges imposed by terminal operators.

Such surcharges, including shipping company charges, container deposits, terminal fees, handling charges, storage costs, and demurrage from deliberate delays at ports, impose enormous financial burdens on shippers and importers.

This is compounded by the already-high import duties, forex volatility and prohibitive clearing costs, leaving many shippers who obtained bank loans unable to repay them, thereby sending many out of business and crippling the economy.

Over time, this financial exploitation became the norm in Nigeria, as there were no effective regulations to check the high-handedness of foreign companies.

This made Nigeria’s seaports among the most expensive in West and Central Africa and rendered the trading environment less competitive, leading to cargo diversion to neighbouring countries.

To address the situation, the Federal Government established the Nigerian Shippers’ Council (NSC), following the 1965 United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) recommendation, which urged developing countries to create national shippers’ councils to protect their trading environment from the exploitative practices of service providers at the ports.

The NSC has operated as the country’s economic regulator under an interim arrangement since 2014, after the port concessions began.

The council had also relied largely on government policy and a 2015 gazette rather than a comprehensive enabling act.

Industry stakeholders have, for years, advocated for an independent port economic regulator to address concerns over arbitrary charges, promote fair competition among operators, improve service delivery, streamline port operations and ensure a more transparent and predictable business environment.

Incurred losses
National President, Africa Association of Professional Freight Forwarders and Logistics of Nigeria (APFFLON), Frank Ogunojemite, said Nigerian port users had for years contended with arbitrary charges, high costs, operational bottlenecks, delays and other practices that undermined the competitiveness of the country’s ports.

Freight forwarders had decried unauthorised fees of N3,000 for 20-foot and N6,000 for 40-foot containers at bonded terminals, amounting to a total of N178 million. They had sought a refund of the amount.

There is also detention charges and delays in the refund of container deposits due to terminals’ and shipping lines’ failure to provide holding-bay capacity for the return of empty containers.

Public Relations Officer of the African Association of Professionals Freight Forwarders and Logistics of Nigeria (APPFLON) Tin Can Port Chapter, Clinton Okoro, said importers and freight forwarders paid as much as N200,000 for a 40-foot container and N100,000 for a 20-foot container as deposits to terminal operators when the consignee’s address is within Lagos.

He said the charges rise to N400,000 for a 40-foot container and N200,000 for a 20-foot container where the consignee’s address is outside Lagos.

Okoro lamented that some shipping companies take considerably longer to refund container deposits, with the process sometimes extending to three months.

Freight forwarders alleged that some shipping lines are unable to receive empty containers promptly because designated holding facilities are unavailable or inadequate, resulting in trucks being used as temporary holding facilities and remaining immobilised for extended periods.

According to Okoro, while removing deposits might seem beneficial, detention charges imposed by some operators could exceed the previous deposit requirements.

The Head of Research at the Sea Empowerment and Research Centre (SEREC), Eugene Nweke, raised concerns over the cumulative impact of multiple small charges imposed within the country’s port environment.

Nweke noted that individual charges such as N2,000, N5,000 or N6,000 might appear insignificant or manageable to port users, explaining that the situation becomes burdensome when several such fees are imposed at different stages of the cargo clearance and logistics process.

According to him, charges relating to documentation, cargo handling, storage, access, truck movement, delivery and other port-related services can accumulate significantly, ultimately increasing the landed cost of imported goods.

The Nigerian Shippers’ Council (NSC) had disclosed that it recovered N86.06 billion in unjustified port charges and secured a savings of N4.54 billion and $1.348 million in economic value for port users between November 2023 and June 2026.

The Executive Secretary, NSC, Dr Pius Akutah, said the Council received 558 complaints and resolved 295 cases with disputes covering container deposits, demurrage, detention charges, terminal charges, cargo claims, export fraud and related commercial matters.

NPERA legislative hurdles
The NPERA Bill underwent a prolonged legislative process among the National Assembly, the NSC, and the Presidency, despite having been in the works for several years.

The National Assembly initially returned it to the NSC for clearer delineation of functions among other maritime agencies to prevent regulatory conflicts and overlapping mandates.

The NSC addressed the concerns, after which the revised Bill was resubmitted to the National Assembly and subsequently passed and transmitted to President Bola Tinubu for assent, but was withheld due to conflicts with provisions of the Tax Administration Act, 2025.

The Senate subsequently corrected the identified issues raised by the President and transmitted the amended version of the Bill to the Presidency in April 2026 for assent.

The President finally assented to it on August 11, 2026, according to the NSC boss, effectively granting the new agency full legal powers to regulate the economic activities of port operators and sanction erring operators.

The Minister of Marine and Blue Economy, Adegboyega Oyetola, said the enactment would pave the way for the establishment of a dedicated, robust and independent economic regulator for the country’s ports, capable of promoting greater certainty, transparency, efficiency and competitiveness.

Oyetola, in a statement posted on his official X account, explained that the legislation would provide a stronger legal basis for regulating tariffs, charges, competition, licensing, and resolving commercial disputes in the port industry.

The minister noted that establishing an independent economic regulator would enhance investor confidence and improve the ease of doing business in Nigeria’s maritime sector.

Industry concerns
While the NPERA framework is expected to strengthen economic regulation of the port sector, including areas such as tariffs, competition, licensing and commercial disputes, industry operators have expressed certain concerns.

More critically, they said, the transition to NPERA must be supported with clear regulations, well-defined institutional mandates, regulatory coordination, stakeholder consultation and measurable implementation milestones.

There is also the need for a clear delineation of responsibilities among the NSC, Nigerian Ports Authority (NPA), Council for the Regulation of Freight Forwarding in Nigeria (CRFFN), Nigerian Maritime Administration and Safety Agency (NIMASA) and the Nigeria Customs Service (NCS), stakeholders said.

Nweke said NPERA and other relevant institutions should clearly define their respective responsibilities to avoid duplication and regulatory uncertainty.

He said there should be a yearly port economic performance report, noting that NPERA should publish a yearly report measuring tariff trends, cargo dwell time, truck turnaround, complaints, disputed charges, refunds, detention disputes and other relevant indicators.

According to him, every legitimate port charge and all payments should be clearly identifiable, while every service should be measurable.

Principal Consultant, International Trade Services Limited, Okey Ibeke, called for a clear delineation of responsibilities between the NPERA and the NPA to prevent jurisdictional conflicts and ensure the effective implementation of the new ports economic regulatory framework.

He warned that unless the powers of NPERA were carefully distinguished from the statutory responsibilities of the NPA and other maritime agencies, the new legislation could create another layer of institutional rivalry in an industry already characterised by overlapping mandates.

Ibeke identified the administration of port concessions as one of the areas requiring the clearest delineation of responsibilities.

He recalled that earlier versions of the NPERA Bill had raised concerns about provisions relating to concession agreements and concession fees, particularly due to the possibility of overlapping responsibilities between the NPA and the Infrastructure Concession Regulatory Commission (ICRC).

The Principal Consultant said the framework should clearly establish who grants and administers port concessions, regulates concession performance, approves or reviews tariffs, collects statutory port dues, regulates commercial charges and licenses port facilities and service providers.
Ibeke also called for clarity over licensing powers under the new regulatory regime.

He explained that the port environment involves different categories of licences and approvals covering port facilities, economic services, shipping, safety, security, customs and professional activities.

New recommendations
Nweke recommended developing a national port cost and operational transparency framework (PCOTF) and establishing a standard detention causality and waiver protocol under the NPERA architecture.

He said it should provide for greater transparency in the application of tariffs, with all approved charges made publicly accessible and subjected to periodic review.

He said the proposed protocol should provide for designated locations for empty-container returns, electronic appointments or return confirmations, documented evidence of attempted returns and maximum reasonable waiting periods.

Nweke further recommended automatic reviews of detention charges when return is prevented by a shipping line or its designated depot, transparent escalation mechanisms, and the suspension or waiver of detention charges when evidence shows that the inability to return the container was caused by the service provider.

He also called for electronic audit trails to be incorporated into the system, arguing that such measures would protect both shipping lines and cargo interests by ensuring that detention disputes are resolved on the basis of verifiable evidence rather than assumptions.

Nweke called for greater transparency in third-party payments within the cargo clearance and logistics chain, particularly fees collected by associations, unions and other third parties, adding that such payments should have clear legal justification and be properly disclosed.