Otunba Frank Ogunojemite is the President of the Association of Professionals Freight Forwarders and Logistics of Nigeria (APFFLON). In this interview with our Assistant Editor, Oluyinka Onigbinde he speaks on the persistent increase in shipping company charges, regulatory failures, cargo diversion to neighbouring countries, and the association’s appeal to the Presidency for urgent intervention.
- “Shipping Companies Are Increasing Charges Without Justification”
- “Freight forwarders are being squeezed out of business”
- “The Presidency must intervene to restore sanity in port operations”
What is the current situation in the freight forwarding industry that has prompted your recent public interventions?
First, let me sincerely appreciate members of the press for the role they continue to play in amplifying industry concerns. The freight forwarding industry is presently under severe pressure, largely due to arbitrary and frequent increases in charges by shipping companies and terminal operators. We considered it necessary to bring these issues into the public space because sustained efforts to resolve them through engagement with relevant regulatory agencies, have not produced the desired outcomes. When dialogue fails and operators are pushed to the wall, public awareness becomes inevitable.
What exactly are the concerns of APFFLON with shipping companies?
Our major concern is the indiscriminate increase in charges by shipping companies without any reasonable justification. These increments have become too frequent, sometimes implemented without prior notice. You only realise an increase when you receive your invoice.
There is no corresponding improvement in infrastructure, equipment, service delivery or efficiency that can justify these increases. Most of the shipping companies are still operating with obsolete equipment and outdated systems, yet charges continue to rise.
Can you give examples of these increases?
Yes. Several shipping lines and terminal operators have increased their charges in recent times. For instance, there was a major issue involving WACT (West African Container Terminal) charges where billions of naira were involved. At that time, we were told approvals had been granted, but no transparent explanation was provided. Now, other shipping companies such as MSC and others have followed suit. What we are seeing is a coordinated pattern where once one company increases charges, others quickly follow, almost as if there is an understanding among them.
Have these companies provided reasons for the increments?
That is the problem — there are no convincing reasons. If charges are increased, there must be justification. Has there been investment in new equipment? Have port processes improved? Has efficiency increased? The answer is no. Most of these companies are making healthy profits. They are not running at a loss. Yet they continue to treat freight forwarders and importers with disregard, largely because they believe nobody is effectively regulating them.
What role should the Nigerian Shippers’ Council be playing in this situation?
The Nigerian Shippers’ Council is statutorily positioned as the economic regulator of the ports. Even if some argue about the extent of its sanctioning powers, it still has a responsibility to regulate. Unfortunately, what we have seen is regulatory weakness. The council has largely been inaccessible and unresponsive. Letters written by industry associations are ignored, and engagement is minimal. This vacuum has emboldened shipping companies to act without restraint.
Some stakeholders accuse the Shippers’ Council of being too close to shipping companies. What is your view?
From our perspective, many of those occupying leadership positions in the council do not appear to be acting in the interest of Nigerian port users. Most are political appointees who may not fully understand the terrain, the challenges, or even the spirit of the Act that established the council.
When regulators do not understand their mandate or lack the will to enforce it, regulated entities take advantage. That is exactly what is happening in the maritime sector today.
Has APFFLON attempted engagement with government authorities beyond the Shippers’ Council?
Yes. We have written to the Presidency to draw attention to the gravity of the situation. In the past, we also wrote to the Minister overseeing the maritime sector. At one point, a committee invited us to Abuja for engagement, but as a private association, we lacked the financial resources to honour the invitation. If the government genuinely wants engagement, it must recognise that freight forwarding associations are not government agencies with budgetary allocations.
How are these developments affecting cargo throughput in Nigeria?
The impact has been severe. One of the major consequences is cargo diversion to neighbouring countries. When the cost of clearing cargo in Nigeria becomes too high, importers naturally seek alternatives. I can tell you authoritatively that some Nigerian importers now route their cargoes through neighbouring ports. These cargoes are supposed to come into Nigeria, but excessive charges have driven them away. This means loss of revenue to the Nigerian government and loss of business for local operators.
Can you quantify the losses or impact on freight forwarders?
While exact figures may vary, the losses are significant. Freight forwarders are being squeezed out of business. High charges reduce margins, slow turnover, and in some cases force operators to shut down or reduce operations. The cost is eventually transferred to the Nigerian consumer, fueling inflation. This is why port charges are not just an industry issue — they are a national economic issue.
Some argue that businesses are entitled to make profits. How do you respond to that?
We are not against profit-making. Every business exists to make profit. However, profit must be fair, reasonable, and transparent. You cannot impose arbitrary charges on port users without explanation or dialogue. There must be proportionality. If costs have increased due to genuine factors such as investment in infrastructure or improved technology, then stakeholders should be engaged and carried along. What we see today is unilateral decision-making.
You mentioned lack of dialogue. How important is stakeholder engagement before any increment?
It is critical. Stable engagement should precede any increment. Freight forwarding associations, importers, and other stakeholders must be consulted. When companies act without dialogue, it leads to distrust, protests, and disruptions. Engagement would help everyone understand the reasons behind decisions and possibly agree on phased or moderated increases.
What about charges that freight forwarders believe they should not be paying at all?
That is another serious issue. There are charges imposed on freight forwarders that should ordinarily be part of operational overheads. For example, costs arising from container examinations by security agencies are sometimes transferred to freight forwarders. This is not how it should be. Such costs should be integrated into operational planning, not passed on arbitrarily to port users.
Why have shipping companies become so bold in implementing these increases?
Because they believe there are no consequences. Regulatory institutions are weak, fragmented, or reluctant to act. In the past, when attempts were made to compel shipping companies to refund illegal charges, they dragged regulators to court. The Shippers’ Council itself lacks a strong legal framework to enforce compliance decisively. This has turned it, unfortunately, into what many describe as a “toothless bulldog.”
What lessons should government draw from previous court cases involving shipping companies?
The key lesson is that regulation must be backed by strong legislation. Without clear legal authority, regulators will always be challenged and undermined. Government must strengthen the legal and institutional framework governing port charges. Otherwise, shipping companies will continue to outmaneuver regulators.
There are claims that approvals for recent increments were conditional. What do you know about this?
From insider information, approvals were allegedly tied to commitments by shipping companies to engage stakeholders and possibly refund certain charges. However, what happened was different. Meetings were scheduled, timelines announced, but increments commenced even before discussions were concluded. This shows bad faith and reinforces our argument that engagement was merely cosmetic.
What is your direct message to the President of Nigeria on this issue?
My message is simple: there must be a holistic, coordinated approach among all maritime agencies. The Presidency must intervene to restore sanity in port operations. Shipping companies must be compelled to justify their charges, regulators must be empowered to act, and stakeholders must be engaged meaningfully. Without this, Nigeria will continue to lose cargo, revenue, and credibility.
Finally, what does APFFLON expect going forward?
We expect genuine dialogue, regulatory courage, and political will. Freight forwarders are not enemies of government or shipping companies. We are partners in trade facilitation. If the right steps are taken, Nigeria’s ports can become efficient, competitive, and business-friendly. But if the current trend continues, the damage to the economy will only deepen.
