Prior to the emergence of the ministerial task force on port charges and efficiency in Nigerian ports, there had been a threat from a coalition of licensed customs agents to withdraw their services from the ports. Before, then there had been skirmishes at Tin Can Island Port– also by licensed customs agents.
These face-offs had one thing in common – they were induced by allegations of high charges, either in the form of customs revenue, payments to terminal operators or unreceipted collections from importers either directly or through their agents.
While issues bordering on appropriate cost of doing business in Nigerian ports have always been contentious and while we agree that they also predate the emergence of private terminal operators into the ports, the intensity of agitations only means that the time has come for an intervention.
Some stakeholders have even insinuated that high port costs are chasing Nigerian importers to ports of neighbouring countries.
Suffice it to stress that apart from terminal operators and Nigeria Customs Service, there are many other stakeholders who by virtue of rendering services, also collect revenue in different forms.
Within the group of stakeholders which collect receipted revenue are private and public sector organizations. Often, the bone of contention is the legality, acceptability or otherwise of (even) the receipted costs. These costs come in different nomenclatures; the worst being the controversial progressive storage charge which was introduced a little over one year ago in the wake of the debilitating port congestion.
While arguments over the propriety or otherwise of these charges rage, shippers (through their licensed customs agents) are made to comply.
That is why we commend the minister of transport, Alhaji Yusuf Suleiman for moving in to safe the situation by constituting the task force which drew its membership from licensed customs agents, Nigerian Ports Authourity and ministry of transport.
We commend the Mrs Chinwe Ezenwa-led task force for (once again) unearthing some of what we already know as causative factors in the seemingly problematic port system. During the team’s visit to the terminals, it was confirmed that port operators still collect unacceptable levies, most of the terminals do not have sufficient cargo handling equipment, and there is influx of all manners of people; even to restricted areas. At one or two of the terminals that were visited, it was obvious that the terminal operators place no premium on the welfare of users of their services. Specifically, the committee had to order that the city office of APMT be shut in furtherance of an earlier order that was given by the minister of transport.
We are totally in support of the action of the minister; first by setting up the task force and second, by not keeping quiet in the face of obvious laxity in the manner that NPA is carrying out its supervisory duties in the relationship with terminal operators. We are quite aware that there is, at the moment, no post- port concession regulatory agency, we are also quite aware of the fact that the National Assembly is on the verge of passing the Ports and Harbour Bill, but no serious supervisory ministry will wait endlessly while there are administrative ways of ameliorating the challenges that port user are facing.
We are told that the task force has already submitted its report to the minister and that the report is likely to be tabled before the Presidential economic advisory team for adoption.
While this obviously ad-hoc ministerial intervention is going on, we appeal to the National Assembly to pay more attention to the Port and Harbour Bill which also incorporates an Independent Port Regulatory Commission.
Discussion about this post