Four Years After Piracy Ended: Nigeria Still Pays Huge War Risks Premium 1
By Oluyinka Onigbinde
More than four years after Nigeria eliminated piracy from her territorial waters and contiguous waters and earned international recognition for securing one of the world’s once most dangerous shipping routes, the country continues to pay hundreds of millions of dollars annually in war risk insurance premiums.
This change followed a major drop in pirate attacks and sea robberies in Nigerian territorial waters and the wider Gulf of Guinea, reaching lows not seen in decades.
This has raised raising questions over why its maritime security gains have failed to translate into financial relief.
Investigations by Shipping Position Daily show that despite Nigeria’s official removal from the International Maritime Bureau’s (IMB) list of piracy-prone countries in March 2022 and its subsequent delisting by the International Bargaining Forum (IBF) from its list of high-risk maritime nations in 2023, vessels trading to Nigerian waters continue to attract additional war risk insurance premiums.
The development has become a source of concern in the maritime industry, with the Nigerian Maritime Administration and Safety Agency (NIMASA) putting the country’s war risk insurance bill at more than $1.5 billion over the past three years.
The premium is imposed in addition to normal marine insurance costs and is ultimately reflected in the cost of shipping goods into and out of Nigeria.
For individual vessels, the additional cost can be substantial.
Checks by our correspondent revealed that NIMASA figures indicate that a Very Large Crude Carrier (VLCC) valued at about $130 million could pay approximately $445,000 in war risk premium per voyage, while a new container vessel valued at about $150 million could attract approximately $525,000.
Some shipping lines also impose separate war-risk or transit disruption surcharges on containers, further increasing the cost of moving cargo to Nigerian ports.
The financial burden is particularly striking against the background of the country’s security record.
Recall that Nigeria invested about $195 million in the Deep Blue Project, a multi-agency maritime security initiative involving the Nigerian Navy, Army, Air Force, Police and the Department of State Services.
The project, launched in 2021, deployed special mission vessels, fast interceptor boats, aircraft, helicopters, drones, armoured vehicles and a dedicated maritime security unit to combat piracy, sea robbery and other maritime crimes.
The investment coincided with a dramatic decline in piracy and crew kidnapping in Nigerian waters.
International maritime security records show that incidents in Nigeria fell sharply from the levels recorded during the height of the Gulf of Guinea piracy crisis, eventually reaching zero reported piracy incidents in the country’s waters for more than four years.
The IMB subsequently removed Nigeria from its piracy-prone countries list in 2021, while the IBF delisted the country from its high-risk maritime nations in 2023.
Yet the insurance bill has remained.
At the centre of the controversy is the Joint War Committee (JWC) of the London insurance market, which maintains a list of geographical areas regarded by marine underwriters as presenting elevated war and related risks.
Findings by our correspondent revealed that Nigeria remains on the JWC’s Listed Areas in its latest 2026 circulars, alongside a wider Gulf of Guinea risk area and countries facing significantly different security circumstances.
Our correspondent noted that the crucial distinction is that the JWC’s risk classification is separate from the piracy assessments carried out by organisations such as the IMB and IBF.
While the IMB records and reports piracy incidents, the JWC operates as an insurance-market mechanism and assesses risks using a broader range of considerations.
This has created a situation in which Nigeria can be recognised internationally as having defeated piracy while still being commercially treated as a war-risk destination by marine underwriters.
The issue has prompted NIMASA to intensify its campaign for Nigeria’s removal from the war-risk list.
The agency has engaged international maritime organisations and other stakeholders, including Chatham House, BIMCO and INTERCARGO, while seeking support for its position that Nigeria’s improved security record should be reflected in lower insurance costs.
However, in a chat with our correspondent a maritime lawyer and former Chairman of the Institute of Chartered Shipbrokers, Barrister Chris Ebare, has questioned the effectiveness of Nigeria’s representation in international maritime institutions, arguing that the country must do more to assert its interests.
Ebare said Nigeria should not simply complain about the continued premiums but should hold its representatives in international maritime organisations accountable for what they do to protect the country’s interests.
According to him, representatives posted to international maritime institutions should be actively identifying and challenging measures that continue to impose unnecessary financial burdens on Nigeria.
He specifically questioned the role of Nigeria’s representative at the International Maritime Organization (IMO), arguing that such representation should go beyond attendance at international meetings to actively advancing Nigeria’s interests.
“Our representative in IMO should be held responsible without any apology,” Ebare said.
He argued that Nigeria’s representatives should have been engaging the relevant international bodies and asking why the country was still being subjected to war-risk charges after its security situation had fundamentally changed.
Ebare said the matter should be treated as a straightforward issue of national interest, stressing that Nigeria’s representatives were sent to international organisations precisely to protect the country’s interests.
He cited the recent removal of Pakistan from the Joint War Committee’s Listed Areas as evidence that persistent engagement could produce results.
Pakistan, which had remained on the list since 2001, was removed in July 2026 following months of direct engagement with Lloyd’s underwriters by the Pakistani government.
The development, Ebare argued, should serve as a wake-up call for Nigeria.
“They know they are right. They know what to do. They know exactly what to do,” he said, stressing that Nigeria should adopt a more assertive approach to international maritime representation.
He recalled the period when William Azuh served as an IMO representative in Nigeria, saying the former official distinguished himself by consulting extensively with Nigerian maritime stakeholders and listening to their concerns.
According to Ebare, effective international representation requires constant engagement with stakeholders at home and the institutions where Nigerian representatives are posted.
He urged the Minister of Marine and Blue Economy, Adegboyega Oyetola, to demand explanations from Nigeria’s representatives on what concrete steps they were taking to secure the country’s removal from the war-risk regime.
“We are not supposed to be charged on these worries and anything. We are not supposed to pay a dime, except something is missing, something is going on somewhere,” he said.
He further said the development has also raised questions about whether Nigeria’s current strategy, which has relied heavily on diplomatic advocacy and international stakeholder engagement, is sufficient to secure a change in the position of the London insurance market.
Further findings by our correspondent revealed that Pakistan after remaining on the war-risk list for about 25 years, established a dedicated government mechanism to engage directly with Lloyd’s, presenting technical evidence, operational assessments and security data before the country was eventually removed.
However Nigeria, by contrast, has been on the Gulf of Guinea Listed Area since 2013 and has seen the area expanded in the past in response to regional security threats.
In 2020, the JWC expanded the Gulf of Guinea Listed Area following a surge in kidnap-for-ransom attacks across the region.
Efforts by Shipping Position Daily to obtain the position of the Lloyd’s Market Association and the Joint War Committee on why Nigeria remains listed despite its improved piracy record were unsuccessful. Emails sent to the organisations seeking clarification and their response to Nigeria’s position had not received a response as of press time.
