The Sea Empowerment and Research Centre (SEREC) has called for comprehensive disclosure of the financial activities of maritime institutions to stakeholders in the sector.

SEREC said this would enable the public to trace public revenue from collection through expenditure, procurement, borrowing, asset creation, debt servicing, remittance, balance and measurable economic outcomes.

SEREC said the country already had constitutional, statutory and institutional mechanisms for public financial accountability.

In a new whitepaper signed by the Head of Research, Eugene Nweke, SEREC argued that fragmented and inaccessible financial information across the maritime ecosystem was undermining accountability, transparency, research, investor confidence, and the presidential ease-of-doing-business agenda.

The whitepaper also identified major institutions including the Nigerian Ports Authority (NPA), Nigerian Maritime Administration and Safety Agency (NIMASA), Nigerian Port Economic Regulatory Agency (NPERA), National Inland Waterways Authority (NIWA), Standards Organisation of Nigeria (SON), National Agency for Food and Drug Administration and Control (NAFDAC), Nigeria Customs Service (NCS), relevant federal ministries and other agencies within the maritime and trade facilitation ecosystem.

The research and policy organisation stated that the recent public controversy over the growth of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) domestic debt, provided a useful illustration of the wider accountability challenge and demonstrated the need to connect borrowing with projects, expenditure, liabilities and economic benefits.

The research centre demanded transparency around public borrowing, noting that citizens should know the amount borrowed and paid, lender, interest rates, tenure, purpose, project cost, repayment mode, liability, the resulting asset and economic benefit.

SEREC said that where a public institution records increased revenue, citizens should be able to determine how much was collected, what was retained, remitted and how the balance was spent.

Also, SEREC explained that where a major project was commissioned, the public should establish the approved cost, contract value, variations, financing source, amount paid, outstanding liabilities and economic return.

The research centre also argued that increases in tariffs and charges should be accompanied by clear financial, service improvement and economic justification, while audit findings should be made available alongside management responses and evidence of corrective action.

SEREC proposed a new transparency framework to address the problem, including the establishment of the Maritime Public-Enterprise Financial Transparency Framework (MPFTF), which covers revenue, budget, procurement, expenditure, projects, assets, borrowing, debt service, remittances, audit, performance, and economic outcomes.

SEREC identified NPA and its responsibilities for port infrastructure, operations, assets, concessions, maintenance and revenue generation, calling for accessible information showing the revenue generated, money remitted or retained, expenditure on infrastructure, maintenance, personnel and overheads, costs of major projects, concession revenues, liabilities and assets created.

The policy organisation said NIMASA’s yearly reporting should integrate financial and performance reporting that shows the relationship between money received and spent, activities undertaken, outputs delivered, and outcomes achieved.

SEREC added that the same principle should apply to SON and NAFDAC because their inspection, certification, standards, conformity assessment, and regulatory activities affect cargo movement, clearance time, compliance costs, supply chain efficiency, and investor confidence.

The research body, however, frowned against the indiscriminate disclosure of sensitive information, but stated that institutions must ensure that every public financial transaction legally subject to public accountability was traceable, understandable and independently verifiable.

SEREC added that commercially sensitive information, national security matters, personal information and legitimately sensitive operational details could remain protected, but confidentiality should be specific, lawful, proportionate, justifiable and reviewable rather than becoming a blanket institutional practice.