The decision of the federal government to hand over the security of Nigerian waterways to a concessionaire is facing stiff opposition from stakeholders

The recent federal government decision to concession security of Nigerian waterways to a private firm has continued to raise dust in the maritime sector. Most maritime operators and security officials in the country have kicked against the attempt to transfer security responsibilities to a private hand. They have vowed to stop what they term a “risky step” of the Nigerian government.

The ruse over maritime security started a few weeks ago, when the Nigeria Maritime Administration and Safety Agency, NIMASA, signed a contract with Messrs Global West Vessel Specialist Nigeria Limited, GWVSNL, an indigenous firm set up about five years ago. In the terms of the contract, GWVSNL is to provide a platform for tracking ships and cargoes, enforce regulatory compliance and surveillance of the entire Nigerian maritime domain.

The contract was endorsed by the federal executive council, FEC, but maritime operators believe it was fraudulently sealed without going through the due process. Security conscious   Nigerians and operators at the seaports are of the opinion that instead of concessioning maritime security to a private firm, the government should provide funds to established institutions like the Nigerian Navy, Marine police, Customs and other agencies which have the experience of securing the Nigerian maritime domain.

Johnson Ogun, former president, Nigerian Association of Master Mariners, NAMM, said the concessioning arrangement contravened rules and regulations of the International Maritime Organisation, IMO, which is totally against militarisation of international waterways. He called on the federal government to cancel the concession to avoid sanctions from IMO. “Any serious government should be able to fund its organisations whose duty is to ensure safety and security and not to leave it in the hands of a private firm under whatever guise,” he said.

Ogun believes that if the contract is not cancelled, most vessels and cargos would divert to seaports of neighbouring countries where business conditions are more favourable. If such ships are diverted, importers would increase prices of goods which would be transferred to the Nigerian public. Diversion of vessels and cargoes to other countries would also reduce revenues that accrue to the Nigerian Ports Authority, NPA, due to reduction of cargo traffic.

Nwagbara Osuala, a maritime lawyer, who is worried at the development said that all over the world, security, be it maritime or at any order level, should remain in the hands of government, particularly when it involves the nation at large.

With the grievance over the maritime security concessioning, NIMASA still believes that it has taken the best decision to safeguard the Nigerian maritime domain. Rex Alem, NIMASA head of public-private partnership, said that the concession was not designed for the NIMASA to cede its functions of maritime safety to anybody, rather a partnership designed solely to take off the responsibility of providing and maintaining platforms for maritime security from the agency.

To him, NIMASA does not have the competence to manage security platforms in the Nigerian maritime domain. “The contract also involves providing crew on board the platforms including wages of the crew, maintenance of the platform as well as making the vessel available and in good condition at all times throughout the period of the concession. The command and control of the vessels available resides exclusively with NIMASA,” he said.

According to Alem, the inability of NIMASA to ensure security on the Nigerian waterways led to the high incidence of piracy and illegal activities in the Nigerian maritime domain. Piracy and illegal activities on the Nigerian waterways is rated among the worst in the world, only second to Somalia in terms of insecurity. It is to curb this menace that NIMASA, fully aware of its inability to handle the situation, took the decision of a Public-Private Partnership, PPP, arrangement with the private firm.

Alem insists that NIMASA’s decision to partner with the private firm was not  illegal as it is fully backed by the NIMASA Act. Section 23, subsection 3 D of the NIMASA Act empowers the agency to partners with private firms in the execution of it duties, adding that all necessary approvals were obtained except that the arrangement did not go through statutory bidding due process because it is a security affair.

The Indigenous Ship Owners Association of Nigerian, ISAN, has vowed to fight the policy to a standstill. The association has given order to its members not to allow agents or officials of GWVSNL intercept, stop, board, search or regulate any of their ships or vessels. Isaac Jolapamo, ISAN president, said that the directive for its members to shun the new security outfit came after it was discovered that two days after the agreement was signed between the government and GWVSNL, agents of the concessionaire took over the Nigerian waterways, harassing ISAN members across the sea.

The controversial maritime security arrangement came a few days after President Goodluck Jonathan ordered the withdrawal of the Maritime Security Agency, MASECA Bill, from the National Assembly. If the National Assembly had passed the bill into law, it would have established an agency likened to the American Coastal Guard, to take charge of the Nigerian waterways. The MASECA bill had originated from the Presidential Implementation Committee on Maritime Safety and Security, PICOMSS. The government’s reason for the withdrawal of the bill was that it did not have the resources to finance MASECA which would have gulped billions of Naira from the government treasury. Apart from piracy, illegal bunkering and under- declaration of imported cargoes thrive within the Nigerian maritime domain.