SEREC Charges Shippers’ Council to Investigate Allegations of Illegal Charges in Bonded Terminals, Other Irregularities Involving Shipping Lines
Dr. Akutah
By Francis Ugwoke
The Sea Empowerment & Research Centre (SEREC) has called on the Nigerian Shippers’ Council (NSC) to investigate the allegations by freight forwarders of unapproved charges and other irregularities at bonded terminals.
The freight forwarders are demanding for a refund of approximately ₦178 million arising from an alleged ₦6,000 per-container charge.
SEREC also charged the Ports Economic Regulator to equally investigate allegations of empty-container returns, holding-bay capacity, truck immobilisation and detention charges involving shipping-line operations.
In a press statement signed by the Head of Research, Fwr Eugene Nweke, the group said it considers these developments deserving of serious regulatory and industry attention moreso with the recent assent of the Nigerian Ports Economic Regulatory Agency (NPERA) Bill, 2026.
SEREC said, “Importantly, SEREC is not presenting the allegations as established facts. The competent regulatory authorities must establish the facts, determine the legality or otherwise of the charges, identify the beneficiaries and establish the actual financial exposure.However, the issues raised are sufficiently significant to warrant a broader policy conversation.
“The timing of these developments is particularly significant because Nigeria has entered a new phase of port economic regulation following Presidential assent to the Nigerian Ports Economic Regulatory Agency (NPERA) Bill, 2026.
“The new statutory framework is expected to strengthen economic regulation of the port sector, including areas such as tariffs, competition, licensing and commercial disputes”.
, “The present ₦6,000-per-container controversy and the reported empty-container crisis should therefore be treated as an opportunity for reflection rather than another episode in the recurring cycle of accusation and counter-accusation within the Nigerian port industry.
“The reported ₦178 million claim, if established, would be significant.
“The reported detention and empty-container challenges are equally significant”.
The group expressed concern about the cumulative effect of operational inefficiencies and questionable charges on the cost of doing business in the ports.
The group added, “SEREC therefore calls for a new regulatory culture in which every charge must have a basis, every service must have a standard components, every delay must have a cause, and every cost must have an accountable bearer or cost function.
“The enactment of NPERA provides Nigeria with an opportunity to institutionalise this principle.
“The industry should now expect more than regulation on paper to practical interventions and sanctions.
“It should expect transparent tariffs, competitive services, efficient operations, enforceable best services minimum industry averages and pricing standards, accountable operators and measurable improvements in port-user experience.
“The ultimate test of the new port economic regulatory regime will not be the number of regulations issued.
“It will be whether a Nigerian importer, exporter, freight-forwarder, trucker or manufacturer can move cargo through Nigerian ports at a predictable, transparent, competitive and internationally credible cost.
“From tariff control to cost accountability.
From complaint management to performance regulation.
From fragmented interests to coordinated port governance.
From regulatory intention to measurable operational outcomes.
“That is the standard SEREC believes Nigeria’s new port economic regulatory era must deliver”.
The statement from SEREC further reads:
The issues raised are sufficiently significant to warrant a broader policy conversation.
They bring to the fore a fundamental question:
“Who should bear the cost when any component of the port logistics chain fails to deliver the service or facility necessary to complete a cargo transaction?”
This question goes beyond NAGAFF, ANLCA, any individual terminal or any particular shipping line.
It concerns the integrity of Nigeria’s port economic architecture.
2. WHY THIS MATTERS NOW
The timing of these developments is particularly significant because Nigeria has entered a new phase of port economic regulation following Presidential assent to the Nigerian Ports Economic Regulatory Agency (NPERA) Bill, 2026.
The new statutory framework is expected to strengthen economic regulation of the port sector, including areas such as tariffs, competition, licensing and commercial disputes.
SEREC welcomes this development.
Indeed, SEREC had previously advocated the urgent establishment of a modern, transparent and professionally managed port economic regulatory framework, warning that the absence of a dedicated statutory economic regulator could undermine Nigeria’s aspiration to become a competitive maritime and logistics hub.
The emergence of NPERA therefore presents an important opportunity.
But SEREC also offers a caution:
“Legislative muscle must translate into measurable operational discipline.”
Nigeria does not merely need a new regulatory institution.
It needs a regulatory system capable of ensuring that:
Every legitimate charge is identifiable;
Every service is measurable;
Every delay has an accountable cause;
Every payment is traceable;
Every licensed operator meets prescribed standards;
And every port user receives value commensurate with legitimate charges imposed.
3. THE ₦6,000 QUESTION: ALLEGATION, EVIDENCE AND DUE PROCESS
The reported allegation concerning an alleged ₦6,000 per-container charge and the demand for refund of approximately ₦178 million should be subjected to proper documentary and regulatory investigation.
The essential questions should include:
1. Was the ₦6,000 charge actually imposed?
2. Who introduced or authorized it?
3. What service did it represent?
4. Was it compulsory or voluntary?
5. Was it contained in the approved terminal tariff?
6. Was it reflected on an official invoice or receipt?
7. Who collected the money?
8. Who ultimately received or benefited from it?
9. What accounting records support the reported ₦178 million?
10. Was any association involved in the collection or administration of the charge?
11. Was the charge known to or approved by the relevant regulator?
12. What remedy is appropriate if the charge is established to have been unauthorized?
These questions should be answered by evidence rather than competing narratives.
SEREC therefore urges restraint by all parties and confidence in the regulatory process.
4. THE PRINCIPLE OF “SERVICE BEFORE CHARGE”
SEREC considers this controversy an opportunity to reaffirm a basic principle of port economics:
“A compulsory charge should correspond to an identifiable service, facility, statutory obligation or legitimate contractual entitlement.”
The basic chain should be:
SERVICE RENDERED APPROVED BASIS TRANSPARENT CHARGE OFFICIAL INVOICE TRACEABLE PAYMENT ACCOUNTABLE BENEFICIARY.
Where that chain is absent, the charge deserves regulatory scrutiny.
Association membership dues, subscriptions, professional contributions or legitimately approved organizational fees should not be confused with compulsory transaction-linked charges imposed upon cargo owners, consignees or freight-forwarders.
This distinction is essential to maintaining professional integrity.
5. THE HIDDEN COST OF “SMALL” CHARGES
SEREC is concerned about the cumulative effect of numerous small charges within the Nigerian port environment.
A ₦2,000 charge may appear insignificant.
A ₦5,000 charge may appear manageable.
A ₦6,000 charge may similarly appear inconsequential.
But when several such charges accumulate across documentation, handling, storage, access, truck movement, delivery and other stages of the logistics chain, the aggregate becomes a significant component of the landed cost of cargo.
This is how a port can gradually become expensive without any single charge appearing extraordinary.
Accordingly:
“Port competitiveness must be assessed by the total cost of moving cargo through the system—not merely by the individual tariff of a single service provider.”
6. THE TERMINAL OPERATOR’S RESPONSIBILITY
SEREC considers terminal operators central to this conversation.
A professionally managed terminal should be capable of accounting for every compulsory charge imposed within its operational environment.
Where a third party, association, service provider or interest group collects money from cargo interests in connection with terminal operations, the terminal should be able to explain:
– Who authorized the collection;
– What service it represents;
– Whether the charge is compulsory;
– Whether it is published;
– Whether it appears in the approved tariff;
– Who receives the proceeds;
– How it is invoiced;
– How it is accounted for; and
– What measurable value the payer receives.
The terminal operating environment must not become a platform for parallel charging.
SEREC is particularly concerned that informal charging structures, where they exist, can create incentives for preferential treatment, artificial delays, service syndication, rent-seeking and other forms of operational distortion.
7. BONDED TERMINALS: LICENCE MUST MEAN CAPACITY
The bonded-terminal dimension requires special attention.
A bonded terminal is not merely a licensed warehouse.
It is an integral component of the cargo-clearance and logistics chain and should possess the minimum infrastructure, equipment, operational capacity, security arrangements and service capability necessary to discharge its responsibilities.
SEREC notes that concerns over the operational capacity and charging practices of bonded terminals are not entirely new. Similar concerns have previously included inadequate equipment, storage limitations, examination delays and accumulation of demurrage and related costs.
This reinforces the need for regulators to periodically ask:
“Does the terminal still meet the operational conditions under which its licence was granted?
Licensing should not become a one-time administrative event.
It should be accompanied by continuous compliance monitoring.
8. THE EMPTY-CONTAINER CRISIS: WHEN A TRUCK BECOMES A HOLDING BAY
SEREC is equally concerned by recent reports concerning difficulties in returning empty containers.
NAGAFF has alleged that some shipping lines are unable to receive empty containers promptly because designated holding facilities are unavailable or inadequate, resulting in trucks being used as temporary holding facilities and remaining immobilised for extended periods.
Earlier reporting also recorded concerns from ANLCA and haulage stakeholders regarding congestion associated with MSC empty containers, difficulties accessing receiving facilities and rapidly escalating haulage and detention costs.
Again, these reports are allegations and stakeholder claims requiring appropriate verification by the regulator.
Nevertheless, the underlying operational question is legitimate:
“Should a haulage truck become an involuntary storage facility because the designated receiving system cannot receive the empty container?”
SEREC’s answer is unequivocally No.
A truck is a transport asset.
It should not be converted into a floating or mobile holding bay because of a capacity failure elsewhere in the logistics chain.
9. THE PRINCIPLE OF DETENTION CAUSALITY
SEREC recommends the adoption of a clear principle:
“THE COST OF DELAY SHOULD FOLLOW THE CAUSE OF DELAY.”
Where an importer or freight-forwarder fails to return an empty container within the applicable period despite having the ability and facility to do so, applicable detention may reasonably arise.
But where the customer is demonstrably ready to return the container and the designated receiving facility is unavailable, inaccessible or incapable of receiving it, the resulting detention should be subjected to a causality review.
The regulatory system should distinguish between:
CUSTOMER-CAUSED DELAY
and
SERVICE-PROVIDER/FACILITY-CAUSED DELAY.
This distinction is fundamental to fair port economics.
10. TOWARDS A DETENTION CAUSALITY AND WAIVER PROTOCOL
SEREC recommends that the new port economic regulatory framework establish a standard Detention Causality and Waiver Protocol.
The protocol should provide for:
– Designated empty-container receiving locations;
– Electronic appointment or return confirmation;
– Documented proof of attempted return;
– Maximum reasonable waiting periods;
– Alternative receiving arrangements where designated facilities are full;
– Automatic review of detention where return is prevented by the shipping line or its designated depot;
– Transparent escalation mechanisms;
– Suspension or waiver of detention where the inability to return is established to be service-provider- induced; and
– Electronic audit trails.
This would protect both shipping lines and cargo interests by ensuring that detention disputes are determined by evidence rather than assumption.
11. PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS: FROM RIVALRY TO COLLABORATION
The present developments also expose a longstanding weakness within the freight-forwarding profession: the tendency for professional associations to become competitors even when confronting common systemic problems.
NAGAFF and ANLCA, alongside other recognized professional organizations, have legitimate roles in representing their members.
But the port ecosystem requires cooperation.
The industry needs:
“Competition in representation, collaboration in professional standards and unity in the pursuit of transparent port governance.”
Disagreements between associations should not be allowed to become disruptions to legitimate trade.
Nor should the defence of members’ interests become an excuse for bypassing regulatory processes.
12. PROFESSIONAL ADVOCACY MUST REMAIN WITHIN INSTITUTIONAL BOUNDARIES
SEREC recognizes the importance of strong advocacy.
However, a professional association should not assume the powers of a regulator, terminal operator, court or enforcement agency.
Where an association believes that a charge is illegal or an operator is violating an established standard, the appropriate sequence should be:
COMPLAINT INVESTIGATION REGULATORY DETERMINATION COMPLIANCE DIRECTIVE REFUND/RESTITUTION WHERE ESTABLISHED SANCTIONS WHERE WARRANTED REVIEW/APPEAL WHERE APPROPRIATE.
Threats to shut down terminals should therefore be approached with caution.
Nigeria’s ports are national economic assets.
Disrupting terminal operations can ultimately harm the very importers, exporters, freight-forwarders, truckers and consumers whom professional associations seek to protect.
13. CRFFN AND THE PROFESSIONAL GOVERNANCE QUESTION
The episode also raises legitimate questions about professional governance.
CRFFN’s role is not to regulate every commercial transaction within a terminal.
However, where the conduct of freight-forwarding professionals or professional associations potentially affects professional ethics, accreditation, public confidence and the integrity of freight-forwarding practice, appropriate regulatory attention is necessary.
SEREC therefore encourages CRFFN to strengthen professional conduct monitoring and to work with recognized associations on a common Professional Code of Port Conduct.
Such a framework should address:
– unauthorized cargo-related collections;
– conflict of interest;
– intimidation;
– disruption of port operations;
– professional rivalry;
– improper representation;
– dispute escalation;
– financial accountability; and
– collaboration with regulatory agencies.
14. NPERA: THE LEGISLATIVE MUSCLE MUST NOW BECOME OPERATIONAL MUSCLE
SEREC welcomes the enactment of the Nigerian Ports Economic Regulatory Agency framework.
The new law provides an important opportunity to strengthen economic regulation of Nigeria’s port sector, including tariffs, competition, licensing and commercial disputes.
However, SEREC respectfully emphasizes that:
“The success of NPERA should ultimately be judged by the quality of outcomes it produces for port users—not merely by the existence of the law.”
Nigeria should now move from:
tariff administration to economic regulation;
complaint management to preventive regulation;
reactive intervention to performance monitoring;
institutional rivalry to coordinated regulation;
and
charge approval to service-and-cost accountability.
The new regime must therefore avoid becoming another layer of bureaucracy.
Its greatest value will lie in providing a coherent economic-regulatory architecture with clearly defined institutional mandates and measurable outcomes.
15. FROM TARIFF REGULATION TO PERFORMANCE-BASED REGULATION
SEREC believes that modern port economic regulation must examine more than the amount charged.
It must ask:
What service was provided?
How efficiently was it provided?
What equipment was available?
How long did the customer wait?
What caused the delay?
Was the charge proportionate to the service?
Could the cost have been avoided through better operational planning?
A terminal can therefore comply with a published tariff while still delivering poor service.
That is why:
“Tariff compliance is necessary, but it is not sufficient for effective port economic regulation.”
16. THE PROPOSED SEREC PORT SERVICE-TO-CHARGE TEST
SEREC proposes that every significant port or terminal charge should be subjected to a simple regulatory test:
WHO PAYS?
Identify the actual payer.
FOR WHAT?
Identify the precise service or facility.
UNDER WHAT AUTHORITY?
Identify the statutory, regulatory, contractual or commercial basis.
AT WHAT RATE?
Establish the approved or contractually agreed rate.
WHO RECEIVES?
Identify the beneficiary.
WHAT VALUE IS DELIVERED?
Demonstrate the corresponding service.
CAN IT BE TRACED?
Ensure the payment is invoiced, receipted and auditable.
If a compulsory charge fails this basic test, it should attract regulatory scrutiny.
17. THE PROPOSED SEREC PORT COST AND OPERATIONAL TRANSPARENCY FRAMEWORK
SEREC recommends the development of a national Port Cost and Operational Transparency Framework (PCOTF) under the emerging NPERA architecture.
The framework should integrate:
A. Tariff Transparency
All approved charges should be publicly accessible and periodically reviewed.
B. Service Standards
Every major terminal service should have a measurable service standard.
C. Cargo Dwell-Time Monitoring
Delays should be tracked and causally attributed.
D. Truck Turnaround Monitoring
Truck waiting and turnaround times should become measurable port-performance indicators.
E. Empty-Container Management
Shipping lines should maintain functional and adequate empty-container receiving arrangements.
F. Detention Causality
Detention should reflect customer responsibility rather than facility-induced delays.
G. Third-Party Payment Monitoring
Payments collected by associations, unions or other third parties within the cargo chain should be transparent and legally justified.
H. Complaint Resolution
Port-user complaints should have defined response and resolution timelines.
I. Refund and Restitution Mechanism
Where an unauthorized charge is established, the affected party should have a clear route to recovery.
J. Periodic Industry Cost Benchmarking
Nigeria’s port costs should be benchmarked against comparable ports in West and Central Africa. In this regards publishing an “Industry Average Tariff Standards” as a point of reference, is apt.
18. WHAT SHOULD A BONDED TERMINAL LEGITIMATELY EARN?
SEREC does not support prescribing one universal monetary figure for all bonded terminals.
Terminal costs legitimately vary according to:
– Container size;
– Cargo type;
– Storage period;
– Equipment requirements;
– Seefer status;
– Special cargo;
– Examination requirements;
– Handling complexity;
– Documentation;
– Delivery arrangements;
– And other legitimate operational factors.
However, the principle should remain constant:
“A terminal should earn revenue from an identifiable service rendered or facility provided—not from access, influence, association affiliation or an unexplained privilege.”
Legitimate terminal revenue may ordinarily include charges relating to:
– cargo handling;
– storage;
– equipment use;
– reefer services;
– special cargo handling;
– legitimate documentation;
– delivery-related services;
– truck-related terminal services;
– and other approved operational services.
The issue is not whether a terminal should earn revenue.
It is whether the revenue is legitimate, transparent, proportionate, traceable and service-based.
19. SEREC’S RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE REGULATORY AND INDUSTRY STAKEHOLDERS
SEREC recommends:
1. Immediate regulatory fact-finding
The competent regulator should investigate the alleged ₦6,000 charge and reported ₦178 million exposure.
2. Documentary audit
Relevant terminals and parties should provide invoices, receipts, transaction records and payment trails necessary to establish the facts.
3. Nationwide terminal charges review
All bonded and off-dock terminals should be subjected to periodic review of their charges and service standards.
4. Continuous licensing compliance
Terminal licences should be subject to continuing infrastructure, equipment, security and operational-capacity assessments.
5. No unapproved compulsory charge
No compulsory cargo-related charge should be collected without a valid and identifiable regulatory, statutory, contractual or approved commercial basis, such charges must has a cost function component.
6. Electronic billing
All legitimate terminal charges should, as far as practicable, be electronically invoiced and receipted.
7. Empty – container management standards
Shipping lines should maintain adequate and accessible receiving arrangements for empty containers. Empty container withholding bay operational standards to be reviewed.
8. Detention causality protocol
Detention should be reviewed where a customer is prevented from returning an empty container by a documented service-provider or facility constraint.
9. Truck turnaround standards
Truck waiting and turnaround times should become formal port-performance indicators. Instituting garage ownership, as operational criteria for trucking services certification.
10. Professional conduct framework
CRFFN and recognized associations should establish and enforce a common Professional Code of Port Conduct, as this necessity is long overdue.
11. Inter-association consultative mechanism
ANLCA, NAGAFF and other recognized associations should establish a joint standing platform for resolving systemic industry issues collaboratively. Extending such platform beyond chapter level to the national headquarters level.
12. NPERA implementation roadmap
The Federal Government should ensure that the transition to NPERA is supported by clear regulations, institutional mandates, stakeholder consultation and measurable implementation milestones.
13. Regulatory coordination
NPERA, NSC, NPA, Customs, CRFFN and other relevant institutions should clearly define their respective responsibilities to avoid duplication and regulatory uncertainty.
14. Port-cost benchmarking
Nigeria’s total cargo-movement costs should be periodically benchmarked against comparable regional ports.
15. Annual Port Economic Performance Report
NPERA should publish an annual report measuring tariff trends, cargo dwell time, truck turnaround, complaints, disputed charges, refunds, detention disputes and other relevant indicators.
20. THE NEW STANDARD: “WHO CAUSED THE COST?”
SEREC proposes that this simple question become a central principle of Nigeria’s emerging port economic regulation:
“WHO CAUSED THE COST?”
If the Importer caused the delay, the importer should bear the legitimate consequence.
If the freight-forwarder caused the delay, the freight-forwarder should bear the legitimate consequence.
If the shipping line caused the delay, the shipping line should bear the appropriate consequence.
If the terminal caused the delay, the terminal should bear the appropriate consequence.
If the regulator caused the delay, the regulatory process itself should be examined.
If the infrastructure caused the delay, government and infrastructure managers must address the deficiency.
This principle is apt, it introduces causality, fairness and accountability into port economics.
21. SEREC’S OVERALL POSITION
SEREC does not view the present controversies as merely an ANLCA-versus-NAGAFF matter, nor as a NAGAFF- versus-Shipping- line dispute.
They are manifestations of a broader challenge:
Nigeria must urgently move from fragmented port operations to accountable port economics.
The country has now taken an important legislative step through the NPERA framework.
The next step must be operational.
The Nigerian port system should become one where:
Charges are transparent;
Services are measurable;
Facilities are adequate;
Trucks move efficiently;
Empty containers are receivable;
Detention reflects causation;
Terminal licences correspond to capacity;
Professional associations respect institutional boundaries;
Regulators coordinate rather than duplicate;
And port users have accessible remedies when things go wrong.
The Sea Empowerment & Research Centre (SEREC) has called on the Nigerian Shippers’ Council (NSC) to investigate the allegations by freight forwarders of unapproved charges and other irregularities at bonded terminals.
The freight forwarders are demanding for a refund of approximately ₦178 million arising from an alleged ₦6,000 per-container charge.
SEREC also charged the Ports Economic Regulator to equally investigate allegations of empty-container returns, holding-bay capacity, truck immobilisation and detention charges involving shipping-line operations.
In a press statement signed by the Head of Research, Fwr Eugene Nweke, the group said it considers these developments deserving of serious regulatory and industry attention moreso with the recent assent of the Nigerian Ports Economic Regulatory Agency (NPERA) Bill, 2026.
SEREC said, “Importantly, SEREC is not presenting the allegations as established facts. The competent regulatory authorities must establish the facts, determine the legality or otherwise of the charges, identify the beneficiaries and establish the actual financial exposure.However, the issues raised are sufficiently significant to warrant a broader policy conversation.
“The timing of these developments is particularly significant because Nigeria has entered a new phase of port economic regulation following Presidential assent to the Nigerian Ports Economic Regulatory Agency (NPERA) Bill, 2026.
“The new statutory framework is expected to strengthen economic regulation of the port sector, including areas such as tariffs, competition, licensing and commercial disputes”.
, “The present ₦6,000-per-container controversy and the reported empty-container crisis should therefore be treated as an opportunity for reflection rather than another episode in the recurring cycle of accusation and counter-accusation within the Nigerian port industry.
“The reported ₦178 million claim, if established, would be significant.
“The reported detention and empty-container challenges are equally significant”.
The group expressed concern about the cumulative effect of operational inefficiencies and questionable charges on the cost of doing business in the ports.
The group added, “SEREC therefore calls for a new regulatory culture in which every charge must have a basis, every service must have a standard components, every delay must have a cause, and every cost must have an accountable bearer or cost function.
“The enactment of NPERA provides Nigeria with an opportunity to institutionalise this principle.
“The industry should now expect more than regulation on paper to practical interventions and sanctions.
“It should expect transparent tariffs, competitive services, efficient operations, enforceable best services minimum industry averages and pricing standards, accountable operators and measurable improvements in port-user experience.
“The ultimate test of the new port economic regulatory regime will not be the number of regulations issued.
“It will be whether a Nigerian importer, exporter, freight-forwarder, trucker or manufacturer can move cargo through Nigerian ports at a predictable, transparent, competitive and internationally credible cost.
“From tariff control to cost accountability.
From complaint management to performance regulation.
From fragmented interests to coordinated port governance.
From regulatory intention to measurable operational outcomes.
“That is the standard SEREC believes Nigeria’s new port economic regulatory era must deliver”.
The statement from SEREC further reads:
The issues raised are sufficiently significant to warrant a broader policy conversation.
They bring to the fore a fundamental question:
“Who should bear the cost when any component of the port logistics chain fails to deliver the service or facility necessary to complete a cargo transaction?”
This question goes beyond NAGAFF, ANLCA, any individual terminal or any particular shipping line.
It concerns the integrity of Nigeria’s port economic architecture.
2. WHY THIS MATTERS NOW
The timing of these developments is particularly significant because Nigeria has entered a new phase of port economic regulation following Presidential assent to the Nigerian Ports Economic Regulatory Agency (NPERA) Bill, 2026.
The new statutory framework is expected to strengthen economic regulation of the port sector, including areas such as tariffs, competition, licensing and commercial disputes.
SEREC welcomes this development.
Indeed, SEREC had previously advocated the urgent establishment of a modern, transparent and professionally managed port economic regulatory framework, warning that the absence of a dedicated statutory economic regulator could undermine Nigeria’s aspiration to become a competitive maritime and logistics hub.
The emergence of NPERA therefore presents an important opportunity.
But SEREC also offers a caution:
“Legislative muscle must translate into measurable operational discipline.”
Nigeria does not merely need a new regulatory institution.
It needs a regulatory system capable of ensuring that:
Every legitimate charge is identifiable;
Every service is measurable;
Every delay has an accountable cause;
Every payment is traceable;
Every licensed operator meets prescribed standards;
And every port user receives value commensurate with legitimate charges imposed.
3. THE ₦6,000 QUESTION: ALLEGATION, EVIDENCE AND DUE PROCESS
The reported allegation concerning an alleged ₦6,000 per-container charge and the demand for refund of approximately ₦178 million should be subjected to proper documentary and regulatory investigation.
The essential questions should include:
1. Was the ₦6,000 charge actually imposed?
2. Who introduced or authorized it?
3. What service did it represent?
4. Was it compulsory or voluntary?
5. Was it contained in the approved terminal tariff?
6. Was it reflected on an official invoice or receipt?
7. Who collected the money?
8. Who ultimately received or benefited from it?
9. What accounting records support the reported ₦178 million?
10. Was any association involved in the collection or administration of the charge?
11. Was the charge known to or approved by the relevant regulator?
12. What remedy is appropriate if the charge is established to have been unauthorized?
These questions should be answered by evidence rather than competing narratives.
SEREC therefore urges restraint by all parties and confidence in the regulatory process.
4. THE PRINCIPLE OF “SERVICE BEFORE CHARGE”
SEREC considers this controversy an opportunity to reaffirm a basic principle of port economics:
“A compulsory charge should correspond to an identifiable service, facility, statutory obligation or legitimate contractual entitlement.”
The basic chain should be:
SERVICE RENDERED APPROVED BASIS TRANSPARENT CHARGE OFFICIAL INVOICE TRACEABLE PAYMENT ACCOUNTABLE BENEFICIARY.
Where that chain is absent, the charge deserves regulatory scrutiny.
Association membership dues, subscriptions, professional contributions or legitimately approved organizational fees should not be confused with compulsory transaction-linked charges imposed upon cargo owners, consignees or freight-forwarders.
This distinction is essential to maintaining professional integrity.
5. THE HIDDEN COST OF “SMALL” CHARGES
SEREC is concerned about the cumulative effect of numerous small charges within the Nigerian port environment.
A ₦2,000 charge may appear insignificant.
A ₦5,000 charge may appear manageable.
A ₦6,000 charge may similarly appear inconsequential.
But when several such charges accumulate across documentation, handling, storage, access, truck movement, delivery and other stages of the logistics chain, the aggregate becomes a significant component of the landed cost of cargo.
This is how a port can gradually become expensive without any single charge appearing extraordinary.
Accordingly:
“Port competitiveness must be assessed by the total cost of moving cargo through the system—not merely by the individual tariff of a single service provider.”
6. THE TERMINAL OPERATOR’S RESPONSIBILITY
SEREC considers terminal operators central to this conversation.
A professionally managed terminal should be capable of accounting for every compulsory charge imposed within its operational environment.
Where a third party, association, service provider or interest group collects money from cargo interests in connection with terminal operations, the terminal should be able to explain:
– Who authorized the collection;
– What service it represents;
– Whether the charge is compulsory;
– Whether it is published;
– Whether it appears in the approved tariff;
– Who receives the proceeds;
– How it is invoiced;
– How it is accounted for; and
– What measurable value the payer receives.
The terminal operating environment must not become a platform for parallel charging.
SEREC is particularly concerned that informal charging structures, where they exist, can create incentives for preferential treatment, artificial delays, service syndication, rent-seeking and other forms of operational distortion.
7. BONDED TERMINALS: LICENCE MUST MEAN CAPACITY
The bonded-terminal dimension requires special attention.
A bonded terminal is not merely a licensed warehouse.
It is an integral component of the cargo-clearance and logistics chain and should possess the minimum infrastructure, equipment, operational capacity, security arrangements and service capability necessary to discharge its responsibilities.
SEREC notes that concerns over the operational capacity and charging practices of bonded terminals are not entirely new. Similar concerns have previously included inadequate equipment, storage limitations, examination delays and accumulation of demurrage and related costs.
This reinforces the need for regulators to periodically ask:
“Does the terminal still meet the operational conditions under which its licence was granted?
Licensing should not become a one-time administrative event.
It should be accompanied by continuous compliance monitoring.
8. THE EMPTY-CONTAINER CRISIS: WHEN A TRUCK BECOMES A HOLDING BAY
SEREC is equally concerned by recent reports concerning difficulties in returning empty containers.
NAGAFF has alleged that some shipping lines are unable to receive empty containers promptly because designated holding facilities are unavailable or inadequate, resulting in trucks being used as temporary holding facilities and remaining immobilised for extended periods.
Earlier reporting also recorded concerns from ANLCA and haulage stakeholders regarding congestion associated with MSC empty containers, difficulties accessing receiving facilities and rapidly escalating haulage and detention costs.
Again, these reports are allegations and stakeholder claims requiring appropriate verification by the regulator.
Nevertheless, the underlying operational question is legitimate:
“Should a haulage truck become an involuntary storage facility because the designated receiving system cannot receive the empty container?”
SEREC’s answer is unequivocally No.
A truck is a transport asset.
It should not be converted into a floating or mobile holding bay because of a capacity failure elsewhere in the logistics chain.
9. THE PRINCIPLE OF DETENTION CAUSALITY
SEREC recommends the adoption of a clear principle:
“THE COST OF DELAY SHOULD FOLLOW THE CAUSE OF DELAY.”
Where an importer or freight-forwarder fails to return an empty container within the applicable period despite having the ability and facility to do so, applicable detention may reasonably arise.
But where the customer is demonstrably ready to return the container and the designated receiving facility is unavailable, inaccessible or incapable of receiving it, the resulting detention should be subjected to a causality review.
The regulatory system should distinguish between:
CUSTOMER-CAUSED DELAY
and
SERVICE-PROVIDER/FACILITY-CAUSED DELAY.
This distinction is fundamental to fair port economics.
10. TOWARDS A DETENTION CAUSALITY AND WAIVER PROTOCOL
SEREC recommends that the new port economic regulatory framework establish a standard Detention Causality and Waiver Protocol.
The protocol should provide for:
– Designated empty-container receiving locations;
– Electronic appointment or return confirmation;
– Documented proof of attempted return;
– Maximum reasonable waiting periods;
– Alternative receiving arrangements where designated facilities are full;
– Automatic review of detention where return is prevented by the shipping line or its designated depot;
– Transparent escalation mechanisms;
– Suspension or waiver of detention where the inability to return is established to be service-provider- induced; and
– Electronic audit trails.
This would protect both shipping lines and cargo interests by ensuring that detention disputes are determined by evidence rather than assumption.
11. PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS: FROM RIVALRY TO COLLABORATION
The present developments also expose a longstanding weakness within the freight-forwarding profession: the tendency for professional associations to become competitors even when confronting common systemic problems.
NAGAFF and ANLCA, alongside other recognized professional organizations, have legitimate roles in representing their members.
But the port ecosystem requires cooperation.
The industry needs:
“Competition in representation, collaboration in professional standards and unity in the pursuit of transparent port governance.”
Disagreements between associations should not be allowed to become disruptions to legitimate trade.
Nor should the defence of members’ interests become an excuse for bypassing regulatory processes.
12. PROFESSIONAL ADVOCACY MUST REMAIN WITHIN INSTITUTIONAL BOUNDARIES
SEREC recognizes the importance of strong advocacy.
However, a professional association should not assume the powers of a regulator, terminal operator, court or enforcement agency.
Where an association believes that a charge is illegal or an operator is violating an established standard, the appropriate sequence should be:
COMPLAINT INVESTIGATION REGULATORY DETERMINATION COMPLIANCE DIRECTIVE REFUND/RESTITUTION WHERE ESTABLISHED SANCTIONS WHERE WARRANTED REVIEW/APPEAL WHERE APPROPRIATE.
Threats to shut down terminals should therefore be approached with caution.
Nigeria’s ports are national economic assets.
Disrupting terminal operations can ultimately harm the very importers, exporters, freight-forwarders, truckers and consumers whom professional associations seek to protect.
13. CRFFN AND THE PROFESSIONAL GOVERNANCE QUESTION
The episode also raises legitimate questions about professional governance.
CRFFN’s role is not to regulate every commercial transaction within a terminal.
However, where the conduct of freight-forwarding professionals or professional associations potentially affects professional ethics, accreditation, public confidence and the integrity of freight-forwarding practice, appropriate regulatory attention is necessary.
SEREC therefore encourages CRFFN to strengthen professional conduct monitoring and to work with recognized associations on a common Professional Code of Port Conduct.
Such a framework should address:
– unauthorized cargo-related collections;
– conflict of interest;
– intimidation;
– disruption of port operations;
– professional rivalry;
– improper representation;
– dispute escalation;
– financial accountability; and
– collaboration with regulatory agencies.
14. NPERA: THE LEGISLATIVE MUSCLE MUST NOW BECOME OPERATIONAL MUSCLE
SEREC welcomes the enactment of the Nigerian Ports Economic Regulatory Agency framework.
The new law provides an important opportunity to strengthen economic regulation of Nigeria’s port sector, including tariffs, competition, licensing and commercial disputes.
However, SEREC respectfully emphasizes that:
“The success of NPERA should ultimately be judged by the quality of outcomes it produces for port users—not merely by the existence of the law.”
Nigeria should now move from:
tariff administration to economic regulation;
complaint management to preventive regulation;
reactive intervention to performance monitoring;
institutional rivalry to coordinated regulation;
and
charge approval to service-and-cost accountability.
The new regime must therefore avoid becoming another layer of bureaucracy.
Its greatest value will lie in providing a coherent economic-regulatory architecture with clearly defined institutional mandates and measurable outcomes.
15. FROM TARIFF REGULATION TO PERFORMANCE-BASED REGULATION
SEREC believes that modern port economic regulation must examine more than the amount charged.
It must ask:
What service was provided?
How efficiently was it provided?
What equipment was available?
How long did the customer wait?
What caused the delay?
Was the charge proportionate to the service?
Could the cost have been avoided through better operational planning?
A terminal can therefore comply with a published tariff while still delivering poor service.
That is why:
“Tariff compliance is necessary, but it is not sufficient for effective port economic regulation.”
16. THE PROPOSED SEREC PORT SERVICE-TO-CHARGE TEST
SEREC proposes that every significant port or terminal charge should be subjected to a simple regulatory test:
WHO PAYS?
Identify the actual payer.
FOR WHAT?
Identify the precise service or facility.
UNDER WHAT AUTHORITY?
Identify the statutory, regulatory, contractual or commercial basis.
AT WHAT RATE?
Establish the approved or contractually agreed rate.
WHO RECEIVES?
Identify the beneficiary.
WHAT VALUE IS DELIVERED?
Demonstrate the corresponding service.
CAN IT BE TRACED?
Ensure the payment is invoiced, receipted and auditable.
If a compulsory charge fails this basic test, it should attract regulatory scrutiny.
17. THE PROPOSED SEREC PORT COST AND OPERATIONAL TRANSPARENCY FRAMEWORK
SEREC recommends the development of a national Port Cost and Operational Transparency Framework (PCOTF) under the emerging NPERA architecture.
The framework should integrate:
A. Tariff Transparency
All approved charges should be publicly accessible and periodically reviewed.
B. Service Standards
Every major terminal service should have a measurable service standard.
C. Cargo Dwell-Time Monitoring
Delays should be tracked and causally attributed.
D. Truck Turnaround Monitoring
Truck waiting and turnaround times should become measurable port-performance indicators.
E. Empty-Container Management
Shipping lines should maintain functional and adequate empty-container receiving arrangements.
F. Detention Causality
Detention should reflect customer responsibility rather than facility-induced delays.
G. Third-Party Payment Monitoring
Payments collected by associations, unions or other third parties within the cargo chain should be transparent and legally justified.
H. Complaint Resolution
Port-user complaints should have defined response and resolution timelines.
I. Refund and Restitution Mechanism
Where an unauthorized charge is established, the affected party should have a clear route to recovery.
J. Periodic Industry Cost Benchmarking
Nigeria’s port costs should be benchmarked against comparable ports in West and Central Africa. In this regards publishing an “Industry Average Tariff Standards” as a point of reference, is apt.
18. WHAT SHOULD A BONDED TERMINAL LEGITIMATELY EARN?
SEREC does not support prescribing one universal monetary figure for all bonded terminals.
Terminal costs legitimately vary according to:
– Container size;
– Cargo type;
– Storage period;
– Equipment requirements;
– Seefer status;
– Special cargo;
– Examination requirements;
– Handling complexity;
– Documentation;
– Delivery arrangements;
– And other legitimate operational factors.
However, the principle should remain constant:
“A terminal should earn revenue from an identifiable service rendered or facility provided—not from access, influence, association affiliation or an unexplained privilege.”
Legitimate terminal revenue may ordinarily include charges relating to:
– cargo handling;
– storage;
– equipment use;
– reefer services;
– special cargo handling;
– legitimate documentation;
– delivery-related services;
– truck-related terminal services;
– and other approved operational services.
The issue is not whether a terminal should earn revenue.
It is whether the revenue is legitimate, transparent, proportionate, traceable and service-based.
19. SEREC’S RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE REGULATORY AND INDUSTRY STAKEHOLDERS
SEREC recommends:
1. Immediate regulatory fact-finding
The competent regulator should investigate the alleged ₦6,000 charge and reported ₦178 million exposure.
2. Documentary audit
Relevant terminals and parties should provide invoices, receipts, transaction records and payment trails necessary to establish the facts.
3. Nationwide terminal charges review
All bonded and off-dock terminals should be subjected to periodic review of their charges and service standards.
4. Continuous licensing compliance
Terminal licences should be subject to continuing infrastructure, equipment, security and operational-capacity assessments.
5. No unapproved compulsory charge
No compulsory cargo-related charge should be collected without a valid and identifiable regulatory, statutory, contractual or approved commercial basis, such charges must has a cost function component.
6. Electronic billing
All legitimate terminal charges should, as far as practicable, be electronically invoiced and receipted.
7. Empty – container management standards
Shipping lines should maintain adequate and accessible receiving arrangements for empty containers. Empty container withholding bay operational standards to be reviewed.
8. Detention causality protocol
Detention should be reviewed where a customer is prevented from returning an empty container by a documented service-provider or facility constraint.
9. Truck turnaround standards
Truck waiting and turnaround times should become formal port-performance indicators. Instituting garage ownership, as operational criteria for trucking services certification.
10. Professional conduct framework
CRFFN and recognized associations should establish and enforce a common Professional Code of Port Conduct, as this necessity is long overdue.
11. Inter-association consultative mechanism
ANLCA, NAGAFF and other recognized associations should establish a joint standing platform for resolving systemic industry issues collaboratively. Extending such platform beyond chapter level to the national headquarters level.
12. NPERA implementation roadmap
The Federal Government should ensure that the transition to NPERA is supported by clear regulations, institutional mandates, stakeholder consultation and measurable implementation milestones.
13. Regulatory coordination
NPERA, NSC, NPA, Customs, CRFFN and other relevant institutions should clearly define their respective responsibilities to avoid duplication and regulatory uncertainty.
14. Port-cost benchmarking
Nigeria’s total cargo-movement costs should be periodically benchmarked against comparable regional ports.
15. Annual Port Economic Performance Report
NPERA should publish an annual report measuring tariff trends, cargo dwell time, truck turnaround, complaints, disputed charges, refunds, detention disputes and other relevant indicators.
20. THE NEW STANDARD: “WHO CAUSED THE COST?”
SEREC proposes that this simple question become a central principle of Nigeria’s emerging port economic regulation:
“WHO CAUSED THE COST?”
If the Importer caused the delay, the importer should bear the legitimate consequence.
If the freight-forwarder caused the delay, the freight-forwarder should bear the legitimate consequence.
If the shipping line caused the delay, the shipping line should bear the appropriate consequence.
If the terminal caused the delay, the terminal should bear the appropriate consequence.
If the regulator caused the delay, the regulatory process itself should be examined.
If the infrastructure caused the delay, government and infrastructure managers must address the deficiency.
This principle is apt, it introduces causality, fairness and accountability into port economics.
21. SEREC’S OVERALL POSITION
SEREC does not view the present controversies as merely an ANLCA-versus-NAGAFF matter, nor as a NAGAFF- versus-Shipping- line dispute.
They are manifestations of a broader challenge:
Nigeria must urgently move from fragmented port operations to accountable port economics.
The country has now taken an important legislative step through the NPERA framework.
The next step must be operational.
The Nigerian port system should become one where:
Charges are transparent;
Services are measurable;
Facilities are adequate;
Trucks move efficiently;
Empty containers are receivable;
Detention reflects causation;
Terminal licences correspond to capacity;
Professional associations respect institutional boundaries;
Regulators coordinate rather than duplicate;
And port users have accessible remedies when things go wrong.
About Post Author
