Analyses

Maritime Labour’s selfish stand against Ports and Harbour Bill

Comrade Adewale Adeyanju, PG, MWUN

The Eyewitness News Analysis

For nine years, maritime labour has fought against the passage of the Ports and Harbour Bill 2015.

Initiated in the eighth Assembly and sponsored by Senator Andy Uba of Anambra South Senatorial District in 2015, the bill, read for the first time on the floor of the National Assembly in 2016, seeks, among other things, the decentralization of ports operations by involving more private interests in ports operations.

The purpose is to open up the ports space for massive investments and attract private sector funds that would be used to build massive port infrastructure.

The bill, if allowed to be passed into law, will repeal the Nigerian Ports Authority (NPA) ACT 1955 as amended by Act CAP 126 LFN 2004 and establish Nigerian Ports and Harbour Authority.

The bill seeks to further consolidate the gains of the 2006 ports concession programme which ceded terminal operations functions of the NPA to the private interests.

However, the bill which enjoyed accelerated hearing on the floor of both the Senate and the House of Representatives, was stalled and got stuck at the ninth National Assembly where it had passed through the third and final reading and waiting to be passed to the House of Representatives for concurrence before its transmission to the President for his assent.

The maritime labour under the aegis of the Maritime Workers Union of Nigeria( MWUN) had mobilised its massive membership across the maritime space to stall the passage of the bill.

The major reason for its opposition, according to Comrade Adewale Adeyanju, the President-General of the Union, is the fear of job loss for the teeming members of the union.

The position of the Maritime Workers union is quite understandable and in tandem with the modus operandi of all labour unions.

No matter the nobility and credibility of the objectives of any public service reform, if it conflicts with the interests of the members, the labour unions will fight it.

In as much as we sympathise with the position of maritime labour on the issue of the Ports and Harbour bill, its position against the passage of this noble bill, is at best, selfish and self–serving.

The Union has not controverted the public benefits which the bill, when passed into law, will bring to the Port operations in the country.

Such benefits as attracting more private sector funds to develop the maritime industry and fix the decaying port infrastructure, thus making our ports more attractive and competitive globally.

Over the years, the government has been overwhelmed with the demands to fund public infrastructures, hence its attraction to concessions, collaborations and partnerships with private sectors in order to get their funds for the development of some critical public infrastructures.

The worsening economy in the country has further placed a huge burden on the government so much so that it has started to falter in some of its financial obligations to these public infrastructures.

Further borrowing will sink the economy into a deeper mess as the country still wallows in the anguish of repaying its humongous debts.

So private participation such as the one being sought by the Port and Harbor Bill will save the nation’s sea ports from further decay due to the inability of the government to fund such a huge commitment.

For many years, the Nigerian Ports Authority has been going cap in hands to the multi- national finance companies to seek $800 million needed to rehabilitate the dilapidated ports infrastructures at Apapa, Tin Can, Onne and Calabar ports, an amount the Federal government could not afford.

Many stakeholders fear that the terms for such loans may not be too favourable to Nigeria as the lenders, in order to hedge against any risks, may hold the NPA to ransom, thus mortgaging our ports to foreign interests.

But with the passage of the contended bill, private sector funds will be readily available to carry out such remedial works without necessarily mortgaging our ports to the imperialist multi-national Finance corporations.

The labour union should rise above its selfish and parochial interests and look at the larger picture of the more developed and efficient port system under deregulated port operations.

The same opposition the Labor put up against the port concession programme of 2006 because of fear of job loss.

Yes, the programme recorded some casualties just as similar reform exercises, but the end eventually justified the means.

As widely acknowledged by the stakeholders, port concession, which ceded terminal operations to private interests, has resulted to massive infrastructural rebirth at the Nigerian Ports.

Terminal operations have become highly efficient, fast and safe which has led to a quicker rate of turnaround time of vessels.

The concessionaires have injected massive funds for the infrastructural development of the terminals.

While the concession programme shipped out redundant labourers, those who survived the purge now earn fatter salaries with mouth-watering remunerations and fantastic welfare packages which was not the case during the pre-concession era.

Comrade Adewale Adeniyi at one time attested to this change in the financial fortunes of his members who are working at the terminals.Working against the passage of the Ports and Harbour Bill will be tantamount to stagnating the progress of the ports and the retardation of the financial fortunes of the very workers the union is claiming to be fighting for.

We understand that there would be casualties just as in the port concession programme and other reforms exercises, but those who are left will enjoy the benefits of the reform.

We are not an advocate of job loss especially at this trying time of the economy when the unemployment market is congested but no surgery is carried out without pain.

No reform is without casualties but the end will certainly justify the means.

Rather than the labour union throw away the baby with the birth water and oppose the passage of the bill in its entirety, the leadership of the union led by the amiable and indefatigable Prince Adewale Adeyanju, should seek to sit with the government and find a common ground for mutual benefits.

No government would be as insensitive as to throw away its workers who have staked their lives and energies to build an entity without adequate compensation and reward.

Just as what happened during the negotiations over the workers’ fate at the concession exercise when the affected workers were given a soft landing, the labour Union could made a similar demand to give a soft landing for any casualty that may be recorded under the disputed bill.

But to outrightly ask the government to jettison the bill which the generality of stakeholders had described as a new dawn in the maritime industry would be the height of self-preservation and selfishness, thereby placing the interests of few persons over the general good of the industry.

We understand the frustration of Comrade Adewale Adeyanju and his team over their inability to access the Minister of Marine and Blue Economy, Adegboyega Oyetola yet, we advise the team should be more persistent and patient.

With patience and diplomacy, the Minister will grant them an audience.

The Union should desist from clothing its interests for opposing the bill in the garb of public interests as it sought to do when its leadership claimed that the bill will expose the port space to security risks, a claim that is not verifiable and an attempt to blackmail the government.

Comrade Adewale Adeyanju should not yield to the urge to disrupt port activities should the union not have its way over the bill as the industry has enjoyed an uncommon industrial peace and harmony since he ascended the leadership of the union, a feat that was largely attributed to his style of negotiation rooted in lobbying and dialogue.

Analyses

NNSL: Debt burden of refloating new national carrier

Some of the aged NNSL retirees

Monday Discourse with Ibrahim Nasiru

Nigeria’s maritime industry is trying to rush into a bright future while carrying a very dark past.

Right now, the Federal Government is making big moves to launch a new national shipping line through high profile Public Private Partnerships(PPP) with global shipping giants.

It sounds like a great plan under the “Renewed Hope” Blue Economy agenda.

But we have to ask a blunt question: how can you float a new fleet when the foundation of your old national carrier is still completely underwater?

On paper, the economic argument for a new shipping line makes perfect sense.

Nigeria loses roughly $10 billion every year to foreign shipowners who carry our oil and gas exports.

Building a domestic fleet would keep that humongous freight money inside our economy, create thousands of jobs, and give the country its pride back as a maritime power.

But the stubborn stance taken by the Maritime Workers Union of Nigeria (MWUN) and the veterans of the defunct Nigerian National Shipping Line (NNSL) is not just emotional grumbling.

It is a matter of basic survival and law.

Almost thirty years after the NNSL was liquidated, thousands of retirees have still not received their final severance pay.

Many have died in absolute poverty, waiting for bank alerts that never came.

This creates a deep trust issue that no amount of fancy Port infrastructure can fix.

Launching a brand-new fleet while ignoring the very people who pioneered the seafaring profession in Nigeria sends a terrifying message to the young cadets in our maritime academies.

It tells them that a life at sea under the Nigerian flag offers zero long term security.

Government officials can argue all they want that this new private sector model is a fresh start separate from past government failure.

But the average worker standing at the jetty does not differentiate between ministries; they see the government as one single entity.

The Ministry of Finance has continually failed to release the approved funds for these retirees, even though officials keep claiming the payment process is almost finished.

This endless delay threatens the entire maritime agenda.

The truth is, we need reconciliation before we talk about refloating any shipping line.

If the government can magically find hundreds of millions of dollars for Port modernization and vessel financing, they can easily find the funds to pay off these old debts.

Ignoring these veterans is a guarantee for industrial strikes and legal battles that will freeze new investments before the ships even arrive.

For Nigeria to dominate Africa’s maritime space, it must prove that it actually values its workers as much as its cargo.

A new shipping line should not just bury the ghost of the NNSL. It needs to be an evolution that begins by paying the deep debt owed to the men and women who first carried our flag across the world’s oceans.

A nation that treats its pioneers like garbage cannot expect loyalty from the next generation.

Chief Ibrahim Nasiru, a public affairs analyst,writes from Abuja.

Analyses

The trillion naira vault: Building political-proof ports for Nigeria

The Monday Discourse with Ibrahim Nasiru focuses on the strategy to lock away the NPA’s port modernisation funds from the groping hands of the politicians in other to avert the calamity which befell the infamous Cabotage Vessels Financing Fund (CVFF)

Following up on the intense national discussion regarding the NPA’s ₦1.489 trillion revenue target, here is a preview of my analysis on how we can structurally lock this massive wealth away from bureaucratic hands.

We cannot allow the historic failure of the Cabotage Vessels Financing Fund (CVFF) to paralyze our economic imagination.

The solution to Port decay isn’t to stop collecting funds, but to change who holds the keys to the vault.

From deploying bankruptcy-remote SPVs to issuing local currency infrastructure bonds backed by pension funds, this piece outlines the exact financial engineering needed to modernize Apapa and Tin Can Island.

Watch out for the full analysis tomorrow.

Analyses

The Anchor of Dependency: Rethinking Nigeria’s Port Financing Strategy

Monday Discourse with Ibrahim Nasiru

The recent Port Management Association of West and Central Africa (PMAWCA) conference in Lagos concluded with a dizzying array of multi-billion-dollar infrastructure promises.

Amidst the boardroom handshakes and official communiques, a familiar theme emerged: West Africa requires tens of billions of dollars to build the “Ports of the Future.”

For Nigeria, a nation grappling with aging brownfield infrastructure and the pressure to fully optimize its deep seaports, the question of infrastructure is no longer about what to build, but how to pay for it.

For decades, Nigeria’s approach to Port development has been tethered to a traditional anchor of dependency, an over-reliance on foreign loans, lopsided concession frameworks, and external development contracts.

If the nation is to truly unlock the economic sovereignty promised by the Blue Economy, it must critically re-evaluate its Port financing strategy, shifting away from debt-heavy models toward aggressive domestic capital mobilization and genuine structural reforms that address how we handle our internal maritime revenues.

Historically, major Port expansions in Sub-Saharan Africa have followed a predictable financial script.

A sovereign state secures a massive bilateral loan, frequently from foreign development banks, backed by state guarantees or the projected revenues of the Port asset itself.

On the surface, this model delivers immediate gratification: shiny new gantry cranes, dredged channels, and modern breakwaters.

Below the surface, however, this architecture creates a cycle of financial vulnerability.

When Port assets are financed through rigid, foreign-denominated debt, the pressure to service that debt often overrides the Port’s primary economic mandate, which is to lower the cost of doing business.

High debt-servicing costs force Port authorities to maintain punitive tariff structures, expensive regulatory charges, and inflated berthing fees.

Consequently, while the infrastructure appears world-class, the Port becomes economically uncompetitive, driving shipping lines to cheaper regional alternatives and defeating the purpose of the initial investment.

To break this loop, Nigeria must confront a glaring fiscal paradox sitting right inside its balance sheet: the architecture of the Nigerian Ports Authority’s (NPA) internal revenue framework.

As revealed in recent National Assembly budget defenses under Managing Director Dr. Abubakar Dantsoho, the NPA is projecting a staggering ₦1.489 trillion in internally generated revenue (IGR) for the 2026 fiscal year, hot on the heels of generating nearly ₦2 trillion in 2025.

The agency is a financial powerhouse, generating enormous wealth from ship dues, cargo fees, and concession tariffs.

Yet, because of rigid fiscal remittance laws, a massive chunk of this liquidity is swallowed directly by the federation’s Consolidated Revenue Fund (CRF) and swept straight into the Treasury Single Account (TSA).

The NPA is effectively treated as a cash cow to finance federal budget deficits rather than being allowed to legally retain and reinvest its own earnings back into the infrastructure that generates them.

Forcing an agency to remit massive sums to the federal treasury while simultaneously asking it to borrow foreign capital or beg for funding via the Central Bank just to dredge a channel or rebuild a collapsing berth is an unsustainable contradiction.

True financial independence requires a sweeping legislative rethink of the Fiscal Responsibility Act to allow the NPA to establish a dedicated, ring-fenced infrastructure retention fund.

If the agency could legally retain just 20 to 30 percent more of its trillions in actual collections specifically for a Port Modernization Sinking Fund, it could fully self-finance the urgently needed overhauls of the 100-year-old Apapa Port and the decaying infrastructure at Tin Can Island without adding a single dollar of foreign debt to Nigeria’s sovereign balance sheet.

Furthermore, this internal liquidity could be used as equity to issue local currency maritime infrastructure bonds on the domestic capital market, allowing Nigerian pension funds to invest in an asset class that generates predictable, long-term, inflation-hedged cash flows.

Ultimately, breaking the anchor of dependency requires moving past the illusion that a nation must always look outward or borrow its way to maritime dominance.

True Port efficiency cannot coexist with a system that starves its primary trade gateway of operational liquidity in the name of national revenue extraction.

As Nigeria positions itself to capture the trade volumes of a developing continent, its leadership must realize that financial engineering is just as critical as civil engineering.

We must design financing models that allow the maritime sector to feed itself first before feeding the national treasury.

Until we cut the chains of debt-heavy external financing and reform our internal revenue retention laws, our Ports will not function as engines of economic liberation, but rather as highly sophisticated toll gates filtering both national wealth and foreign debt back to external creditors.

Chief Ibrahim Nasiru, a public affairs analyst, writes from Abuja