When former President Olusegun Obasanjo came into office in May, 1999, he made it unambiguously clear that his government was interested in opening up the nation’s economy to the private sector. The position of the government was that there was need for reforms in many sectors of the economy, including the nation’s seaports.
Perhaps, the most popular singsong is port concession, apparently because it translated to stripping Nigerian Ports Authority of its core functions and transferring same to the private terminal operators.
When former President Olusegun Obasanjo came into office in May, 1999, he made it unambiguously clear that his government was interested in opening up the nation’s economy to the private sector. The position of the government was that there was need for reforms in many sectors of the economy, including the nation’s seaports.
Perhaps, the most popular singsong is port concession, apparently because it translated to stripping Nigerian Ports Authority of its core functions and transferring same to the private terminal operators.
Of course, the concession policy led to massive down-sizing on the part of NPA and of course, thousands of dockworkers also went with it. The exact number of dockworkers and NPA employees who lost their jobs is still top secret.
To the government (justifiably) the nation’s seaport were already decaying; both in terms of service delivery and security as well as infrastructures, not to mention integrity and best practices.
That was enough justification and we share government’s position on that. We also share government’s disposition that managing the ports by its employees had been most unprofitable.
The reforms led to the emergence in April of 2006, the first set of concessionaires, namely: ENL Consortium, Apapa Bulk Terminal Limited (ABTL), Greenview Development Nigeria Limited (GDNL) and APM Terminals. Between then they shared the Lagos Ports Complex.
Not too long after, the train moved over to Tin Can Island Port, Port Harcourt port, Calabar and Warri ports and so the journey into another world began for both Nigerian Ports Authority (NPA) and other stakeholders in the port system.
For NPA, the emergence of these new operators marked the beginning of reduced relevance as its core operations, such as cargo handling, shore handling, traffic and so on were taken over by profit-motivated private sector operators which in-turn balkanized the ports and erected perimeter fences to map out their areas of operations.
The Container Terminal and the Lilly Pond Container Freight Station in Ijora were concession to APM Terminal for 25 years and 10 years respectively. WhileUS$3.6 Billion was offered for Container terminal, US$9,652,834 Million was offered for the Ijora terminal.
To take over terminals C and D at the LPC for a 10 year lease period, ENL offered US $79,080,960. Dangote Group (owners of GDNL) offered US$62.75Million for terminal E for a 25-year lease. Similarly, terminal A and B went to ABTL for US$42,711,136 for 25 years also. As for Tin Can Island port, Josepdam Nigeria Ltd offered US $22,513,697Million for Terminal ‘A’ for 10 years; Tin Can Island Container Terminal offered US $174,512,679Million for terminal ‘B’ for 15 year lease. Also, Terminal’s’ at the same port went to SIFAX for US$164,980,800 Million in a 10 year lease agreement.
Apart from these agreements, the most ambitious is the new port development that was embarked upon by the Grimaldi Group for US$62Million. Others are Port Harcourt port for which between US$166,584,700Million and US$25.123Million was offered by the duo of Port and Terminal as well as Bua International.
No doubt, these are monumental financial commitments on the part of those who now operate the terminals.
Perhaps because it occupies the most strategic portion of the Lagos Port Complex (that is the old Container Terminal) for which it coughed out the princely $3.6Billion, it share of attention and blame has been phenomena.
Under the dispensation of port concession, the stakeholders of any terminal operator (APMT inclusive) are: NPA itself, sister terminal operators, importers and their licensed customs agents, shipping companies/agents, labour (especially dock workers).
At the last count, APM Terminal has had issues with virtually all of these groups, perhaps with the exemption of sister terminal operators.
And lately, the concessionaire has again been at logger heads with licensed customs agents and shippers. They are angry with the breakdown of the billing system at the terminal, leading to inability to take delivery of their containers for about five weeks, they are even angrier that the concessionaire is making them to pay for the weeks that the containers couldn’t exit the terminal.
The prolonged system failure has already drawn the attention of the port economic regulator; the Nigerian Shippers’ Council, which has ordered that no importer or clearing agent should be made to pay for demurrage or storage during the period of the system failure.
In addition, both the Shipper s’Association Lagos State (SALS) and the Association of Nigerian Licensed Customs Agents have threatened to sue the concessionaire if it fails to waive all demurrages that have accrued during the period of the breakdown.
While the system failure lasted, APM Terminal is showing no remorse or sympathy for those whose containers have to stay longer at the terminal.
Sadly however, rather than APM Terminal engaging these stakeholders in meaningful and constructive dialogue each time issues arise, it often chooses to fight them with propaganda.
A few instances will suffice here; when the Maritime Workers Union of Nigeria; an essential stakeholder to the terminal operator decided to order its members to embark on a strike, the union and its President General were viciously attacked in the media.
When the Honourable Minister of National Planning condemned what he saw, rather than accept and remedy the situation, it embarked on a white-wash of the truth, saying that the facilities it gave to the Customs and for customs examination were of best standard.
When freight forwarders have issues with the terminal operator, its approach is always to accuse them of being used, so we ask: by who?
Since the system breakdown started and attacks on the terminal operator resurfaced, the most pertinent question might be – Why APM Terminal, all the time.
While it is true that whatever is wrong with APM Terminal may also be wrong with others. Certainly, APM Terminal is not worse than ENL, neither is it worse than Josepdam, ABTL, or Port and Cargo. As a matter of fact, it is often used as an example of how a concessioned port should be: fortified, impregnable and removed from outside interference.
So what is it that APM Terminal is doing that others are not doing, or what is it that others are doing that APM Terminal is not doing?
The simple answer is that, while others are realistic about their challenges, while they are more stakeholders-conscious, APMT is the exact opposite; believing in propaganda instead of constructive engagement with its immediate publics.
It is not about how much it paid to win the concession, it is also not only about how much it pays to NPA as royalty, it is about how satisfied the users of its services are.
While blaming the terminal operator, we also condemn the leadership of the leading freight forwarding associations for behaving as if they are compromised; that is if they are not.
Discussion about this post