When the federal government constituted the panel on rationalization of its agencies, the intention was made obvious and that was that currently, Nigeria has too many agencies. At the last count, there were more than 400 of such agencies, all drawing from the lean resources of the Federal Government.
When the federal government constituted the panel on rationalization of its agencies, the intention was made obvious and that was that currently, Nigeria has too many agencies. At the last count, there were more than 400 of such agencies, all drawing from the lean resources of the Federal Government.
While inaugurating the committee (which is chaired by former head of civil service, Mr Steve Oronsaye), President Goodluck Jonathan had disclosed that his administration was acting on the recommendation of an earlier Presidential Advisory Council led by General Theophilus Danjuma (rtd).
The Danjuma committee had advised Jonathan to reduce the number of the Ministries, Departments and Agencies as part of measures to ultimately cut the cost of governance in the country.
And while inaugurating the Oronsaye committee, President Jonathan said the large size combined with duplications in the functions of the agencies had led to “inefficiencies and wastages.” He consequently, expressed his desire to “eliminate overlap, duplication and redundancies.”
Since the committee started its work, there had been speculations that some agencies in the maritime sector would be affected; this has even become louder in the last few weeks; since news have been filtering in that the committee is about to submit its report.
Since then too, some agencies have been speculated as likely casualties, top among which are: Nigerian Shippers Council, National Inland Waterways Authourity, some have also speculated about the fate of the Nigerian Maritime Administration and Safety Agency.
The Nigerian maritime sector can not rank among the sectors that have the highest number of government agencies and departments. This also does not presuppose that the ‘few’ agencies in the sector have done sufficiently well enough to justify their continued relevance under the emerging dispensation of fewer government agencies.
Apart from the Nigerian Ports Authourity, it’s probably the Nigerian Shippers’ Council that have been around the longest (since 1978), giving birth to the former National Maritime Authourity (now NIMASA).
Prior to now, a lot of people have canvassed that the Shippers’ Council should be a private sector-driven organisation and that the government should no longer fund or superintend it.
The case of Shippers’ Council appears to be the most pathetic; its statutory functions are either what an agency can annex or what is being canvassed for take- over by the private sector appears attractive. Certainly, the council has not been able to achieve much as the superintendent of all issues regarding import and export, while it has not ably defended the interests of Nigerian shippers, except for the negligible and feeble efforts of its appendage; the Cargo Defence fund. The Shippers’ Council (even though staffed by competent professionals) has largely been unable to impact positively on the fortunes of Nigerian importers and exporters (who are more vulnerable). There is very little a shippers’ council can do in a global shipping business where it does not control the means of afreightment, but to employ dialogue and advocacy, which is best done by the private sector.
As for NIMASA, its actions and inactions in the pursuit of its mandate have made it vulnerable. It is arguably the only government institution that has been lampooned the most as being unable to meet up; it is either it is not doing well in the area Cabotage Act implementation, or it is not doing anything at all to ensure safety of ships, cargo and crew within the Nigerian maritime domain. Some other stakeholders have also lampooned the agency for not making Nigeria’s registry to be attractive and robust, while others have frowned at the prevalence unqualified seafarers and depleted national fleet.
The National Inland Waterways Authourity may also be qualified for rationalization, because of its present state of inactivity; it has remained largely ineffectual, except for recent attempts to remain relevant.
Be that as it may, we strongly believe that since there are very few agencies in the maritime industry, the Oronsaye committee may not be entirely justified to rationalize them, sadly; too it is not within its mandate to seek a review of their enabling Act so as to strengthen them.
Discussion about this post