The recent invasion of the facilities of the Apapa Bulk Terminal Limited (ABTL) allegedly on the orders of the Customs Area Controller; Mr Charles Edike has thrown up a lot of issues.
It has divided stakeholders along two sharp lines – those who support the Customs action to ascertain its supremacy at the port, and those who affirms that the ABTL management was acting in consonance with the dictates of the law.
The recent invasion of the facilities of the Apapa Bulk Terminal Limited (ABTL) allegedly on the orders of the Customs Area Controller; Mr Charles Edike has thrown up a lot of issues.
It has divided stakeholders along two sharp lines – those who support the Customs action to ascertain its supremacy at the port, and those who affirms that the ABTL management was acting in consonance with the dictates of the law.
For the sake of this editorial, may we recall that about three weeks ago, some staff of ABTL were detained after officers of Apapa customs command invaded the terminal on account of an alleged refusal to allow the customs controller make use of the terminal’s facility as a thoroughfare. The enraged customs officers also allegedly vandalized some offices at the terminal.
The terminal operator’s action was reportedly instigated by a letter from NIMASA in which it called the attention of ABTL to the breach of ISPS Code by allowing unrestricted use of its facilities as a thoroughfare.
The face-off between the terminal operator and the Customs has brought to the fore the fragile nature of the camaraderie that ordinarily should exist among regulators in Nigerian ports.
It is true that the International Ships and Ports facility Security (ISPS) Code, upon which NIMASA and ABTL hinged their defence, embodies a comprehensive set of security measures introduced for ports and facilities by the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) following the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in the U.S.
Going by the dictates of the IMO and the details of ISPS Code, there are three levels of security that any port and other facilities must attain. Level one requires that there should be minimum, appropriate and protective security measures within the ports; the second level of security is that there should be appropriate additional protective security measures which shall be maintained for a period of time as a result of heightened risk of a security incident. Security level three is the time when there is the probable or imminent risk of a security incident. At this level, there must be further specific protective security measures for a limited period of time when a security incident is probable or imminent, although it may not be possible to identify the specific target.
At the moment, the Designated Authourity for ISPS Code implementation in Nigeria is NIMASA, which means that it carries blames for any breach of the code.
We recall that, while the United Coast Guard was on our neck as nation for failing to meet minimum requirements, NIMASA was held responsible.
However, the ABTL vs Customs unfortunate incident has pitched stakeholders against one another and depending on which side of the divide they belong; the argument has been whether or not the ISPS Code is superior to the Customs and Excise Management Act.
Our stand is that there is no contention about the provisions of CEMA, the position and authourity of the Customs area controller.
We have also clearly examined the provision of Section 158(2) of the CEMA, which empowers any Customs officer “engaged in the enforcement of the Customs and Excise Laws to patrol freely over and enter any place in Nigeria”.
We also note that Section 131(2) of the same CEMA has been quoted to provide that: “Where an officer, after having demanded admission into such premises and declared his name and business at the entrance thereof is not immediately admitted, that officer and any person acting in his aid may break open any door or window of the premises or break any wall thereof for the purpose of obtaining admission.”
While not wanting to apportion blame or be an advocate for either of the parties, we however observe that officials of ABTL couldn’t have been ignorant of the fact that all ports are ‘customs port’. But we also figure that they are aware that this does not include the habitual using of their premises as a thoroughfare to beat the maddening traffic on Wharf road to Ijora. Sadly, this has been the practice by, not only Customs officers, but also some other highly placed officers.
But, in the particular case at hand, it is the sanctity of the ISPS Code that is being undermined.
Some people have argued that the usage of the ABTL by the Customs boss as a thoroughfare does not constitute any ‘risk’, but in the eyes of the promulgators of the ISPS Code, it is a violation. While we agree that it shouldn’t have been seen as a risk by NIMASA or ABTL, but the habit actually encouraged others, and this is where the problem lies.
Why must every highly placed person take advantage of their positions? Perhaps, if the ABTL alternative route is not available, those who use it as their escape route would have put their influences to bear on the chaotic traffic on the two access roads into Lagos ports.
What is at stake here is the use of discretion of the part of the ABTL’s security personnel, who ought to accord the Customs Controller his deserved respect.
We condemn in strong terms the retaliatory brazen display of power by the customs officers who pounced on the personnel of ABTL on that fateful day,and who also broke into some offices, vandalised some equipment, and used tear gas to ‘smoke out’ their unarmed preys.
Taking all into consideration, it is our opinion that, in the particular case between the Apapa Customs and ABTL, the sanctity of ISPS Code was violated. Every stakeholder should condemn the act.
Discussion about this post