It is almost seven years since former president Olusegun Obasanjo signed the Coastal and Inland Shipping Act (otherwise called Cabotage) into law at a brief, but epoch-making ceremony at the State House in Abuja.
Obasanjo’s assent was after both chambers of the National Assembly have painstakingly debated and passed the Bill. Of course, the law makers also subjected it to elaborate public hearing which was attended by stakeholders who were very critical to the new law. These included ship owners and agents, shipping practitioners (indigenous and multinational), financial institutions, government agencies, including Cabotage Act’s would-be implementing agency, that is the-then National Maritime Authority (NMA).
To the extent that the Bill went the full mill of legislative process, it could be said to have been well thought-out. Without mincing words, we commend the role of the then- chairman of the House of Representatives committee on marine transport, Hon. Okey Udeh and other members of that committee as well as the Senate committee for the foresight of enacting the Coastal and Inland Shipping law for the larger interest of Nigeria and specifically for the protection of indigenous shipping practitioners.
At the conception stage, we recall the then- highly vocal, but now –seemingly- moribund Nigerian Shipping Companies Association telling the law makers that if the almighty United States of America could make a bold statement of indigenizing her coastal shipping business through the Jones Act of 1938 why can’t Nigeria with a coastline of about 870 kilometres and almost 3,000 kilometres and about 22 ½ billion cubic metres of crude oil deposits, 3 ½ trillion cubic metres of hydro carbon and 42.7 billion cubic metres of bitumen deposits embrace protectionism.
With a lofty objective of deliberately reserving commercial transportation of goods and services within Nigeria’s coastal and inland for Nigerian-flag vessels and vessels that are owned by Nigerians, the Cabotage Law of 2003 spelt out four pillars upon which its implementation must rest.
The four pillars are that: Cabotage vessels must be wholly -owned by Nigerians; they must be registered in Nigeria, must be crewed by Nigeria and Nigerian shipyards must build and repair Cabotage vessels.
We are of the strong opinion that the law has failed largely to meet the expectations of those who laboured to enact it.
Between 2003 and now, we have had six ministers of transport and five directors general at the helm of affairs at the NMA and later the Nigerian maritime Administration and Safety Agency (NIMASA).
A major provision of that law is the Cabotage Vessel Financing Fund (CVFF).Another is the highly lucrative ministerial waiver clause. These two have largely been the log in the wheel of actualisation of the Cabotage law.
We ask the following questions: Why has it been difficult for Cabotage to create (even) marginal employment for the nation’s swelling population of seafarers six years after actual implementation commenced. Why is it that both NIMASA and the supervisory ministry of transportation are more interested in granting waivers to foreign flag vessels to trade within our coastal waters in clear violation of the provisions of Cabotage?. Available statistics show that after one year of supposed implementation, more than 300 waivers were approved by the then minister of transportation, Dr. Abiye Sekibo. Why is it that six years down the line, indigenous shipping practitioners are still full of the same lamentations just as they were prior to the enactment; they still complain that multinationals are dominating even coastal freight business in Nigeria. Can we ask NIMASA this question: how many indigenous ship- owning company has it registered since 2003 and how many foreign? To what extent has the CVFF been useful to Nigerian operators and how many have benefited and how much has been given out.
We think that the last six years have been wasted on rhetoric and rudderless implementation of the all important law. We urge relevant agencies, in the case the ministry of transport and NIMASA to redirect itself.
We are more worried that by its own provisions, the Cabotage Act is overdue for amendment and review. What are we going to record as the achievements or better still, is it the failure to implement its provisions that will justify the amendment.
Finally, we want to commend current efforts of the incumbent management of NIMASA for signs of a renewed vigour and determination to put Cabotage back on track.
In the same measure, we want to advise once again that the new minister should urgently commence actualisation of the report of the committee which his predecessor set up to review the law. The report is somewhere in the ministry awaiting action. Once the review is carried out, Cabotage may then start witnessing movement.
Discussion about this post