Funso OLOJO

On Saturday, June 21st, 2025, a  cargo vessel christened CHANG MIN, anchored and discharging at the ENL terminal, Apapa, was involved in an incident which has been differently described as a “fire incident”  and “emissions of smoke”

The vessel was laden with a variety of cargo which includes CNG trucks, wooden products, tyres and other highly combustible products.

While one account said part of the vessel was gutted by fire before it was eventually put out, another report said what happened was a mere ” emission of smoke”.

There are three parties to the account of the incident.

Both the Nigerian Ports Authority (NPA) and the Lagos State Emergency Management Authority (LASEMA) agreed that what happened was a fire outbreak.

On the other hand, the ENL, the owner and the operator of the terminal, debunked the claim of fire outbreak instead, it said it was ” an emission of smoke from one of the hatches of the ship”.

Here is the NPA account of the incident

” In response to an alarm received by the Marine Division of the Nigerian Ports Authority from a vessel at about 15:00 hours today, Friday, June 20th, 2025, the NPA emergency preparedness mechanism was immediately activated to avert what would have resulted in huge investment losses when a fire outbreak was reported aboard a vessel berthed at one of the terminals in the Apapa Port Complex.

“The NPA Fire Service Department immediately deployed it’s state-of-the-art fire fighting equipment in concert with the NPA Tugboats whose fire-fighting capability helped to combat the fire from the seaside whilst the NPA firefighters with the collaboration of the Terminal’s fire team, Dangote Fire Team and the Lagos State Fire Service Team contained it from the land side.

“The Authority wishes to appreciate the Dangote Group Fire Team and the Lagos State Fire Service for their collaborative support.

“The Authority wishes to assure all stakeholders that the situation is now under control and reiterate its relentless commitment to promoting the culture of safety and continuous improvement in emergency preparedness” declared the NPA in its official statement.

The LASEMA, giving the account of the same incident said

“Following distress alerts at 1755hrs, the Lagos State Emergency Management (LASEMA), activated the State’s Emergency Response Plans from the Cobra Base in Onipanu.

“Upon arrival at the scene, a cargo ship, CHANG MIN, laden with cargo which included CNG trucks, wooden products, tyres and other highly combustible products, was observed to have caught fire within section two of the cargo hold.

“Preliminary investigations conducted by Emergency responders at the scene revealed that the fire was observed at the point of unloading and the cause is yet to be ascertained at time of report.

“No life was lost and no injuries were sustained to anyone as all seafarers on board have been accounted for.

“The Cobra response team alongside all other responders at the scene undertook the following actions: Debrief from the Crew on board to give more information to Emergency Response Teams as to the instruction that the compartment be totally shut to eliminate oxygen supply, while initial dampening down was being conducted;

“A fire response plan was agreed upon by Emergency Responders on a method to combat the inferno in the safest possible way to eliminate secondary incidents and also ensure the safety of all fire fighters; ⁠Reopening of the cargo hold to enable fire teams engage the inferno; Location of fire and the ship floor plan” declared the Lagos state fire fighters which corroborated the NPA’s account.

But in a swift reaction, the ENL Consortium debunked the two similar accounts.

In its rebutal statement, the terminal operator said the incident was ” an emission of smoke” and not fire outbreak.

“There was absolutely no naked fire on the ship,”

“What occurred was emission of smoke from one of the hatches of the ship, a situation which was swiftly identified and effectively curtailed without escalation.

 “The smoke was quickly traced, and our emergency response team acted immediately in line with established safety protocols.

“The situation was promptly brought under control.

“The quick and professional handling of the incident highlights the company’s strong safety culture and the effectiveness of its rapid response systems” the ENL management declared.

From the account of the incident from the three parties which witnessed the scenerio, the NPA ‘s account agreed with that of the LASEMA while the ENL, for a curious reason,  deferred.

Analysts believed that the  NPA would not have received a distress call from the terminal if the incident was a ” mere emission of smoke” which the fire fighters of the ENL should have been able to control .

They also declared that if it was a mere ” emission of smoke” there wouldn’t have been any need for the NPA to call for a reinforcement from LASEMA and Dangote fire fighters.

It was also agreed that a mere ” emission of smoke” would not have involved the elaborate efforts from the combined team of NPA, LASEMA and Dangote fire fighters to put it off.

Curiously, the account of the ENL on the incident was silent on the yeoman’ s job of the NPA, LASEMA and Dangote fire fighters.

Instead, the ENL only gave credit to the professional expertise of its fire fighters who swiftly put off the “smoke”

“The smoke was quickly traced, and our emergency response team acted immediately in line with established safety protocols” the terminal operator said.

With the  muddled account of the  incident by the ENL,   watchers of the event queried the motive of the terminal operator and its attempt to cover up what was clearly a fire incident that was curtailed by the combined team of NPA ,LASEMA and Dangote fire fighters.

An amused respondent asked rhetorically” what is the ENL hiding?