Nigeria risks sanction if the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) wades into the controversies surrounding the concession contract of the nation's maritime domain security to a private firm widely believed to be owned by an ex-militant.
The controversies are coming on the heels of the country’s loss in its bid to retain category ‘C’ seat on the IMO Council in December 2011.
The concession contract midwifed by the Nigerian Maritime Administration and Safety Agency (NIMASA) to the private firm, Messrs Global West Vessel Specialist Nigeria Limited (GWVSNL), to oversee the Nigerian maritime domain security, has been causing ripples in maritime circles.
The nation’s main opposition party- the Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN) was the first to blow the whistle and alerted the nation of a memo to the Federal Executive Council (FEC) from the Federal Ministry of Transport to concession the nation’s maritime security to a private firm.
Since, then, operators had come up with several arguments and condemned the move.
They said that the decision to concession the security of the nation's waterways would turn Nigeria to a laughing stock in the comity of maritime nations.
A recent talk-shop was held in Lagos with the theme “Concession of Nigeria’s Maritime Domain Security to Private Firm: A Critical Appraisal,” organized by the Maritime Reporters’ Association of Nigeria (MARAN) to appraise the NIMASA-GWVSNL maritime domain security contract.
All the speakers at the talk-shop, except the representative of the Director-General of NIMASA, Mr Patrick Akpobolokemi, Mr Rex Elem, Head of Public Private Practice (PPP) in NIMASA, condemned the concession agreement.
The operators, who refused to be convinced by all explanations from the NIMASA's representative, cautioned that the concession might lead to Nigeria being sanctioned by the IMO for contravening international conventions.
Before the floodgate of condemnations of the contract, Mr Bolaji Akinola, the MARAN President, said that “the award of this contract had evoked passionate discussions among stakeholders in the Nigerian maritime industry, especially as it is coming on the heels of the defeat of the contentious Maritime Security Agency (MASECA) Bill by stakeholders.”
Bolaji said: “So many questions are begging for answers over the award of this contract:
• What is the rationale behind the award of this contract?
• How can an organisation like NIMASA that generates hundreds of millions of dollars annually suddenly find it difficult to invest $103.4m (N16 billion) on crucial infrastructure that is essential to the nation’s security as to warrant this manner of concession?
• What exactly is the role of the contractor since we have been told that the Nigerian Navy together with NIMASA will still be responsible for securing the waterways?
• Why did NIMASA not inform the general public that its opposition to the MASECA Bill ab initio was to pave way for a favoured contractor; a kind of private MASECA?
• Was there a deliberate attempt to paralyze NIMASA-owned patrol crafts, which were fully functional until about a year ago, to give a semblance of rationality to the NIMASA/GWVSNL arrangement?
• Were the ‘patrol boats’, hitherto provided by GWVSNL to NIMASA last year, supposedly free of charge really free? If they were free, what is the monthly payment of about N100 million by NIMASA to this company for?”
Mr Kunle Folarin, Chairman, Ports Consultative Council (PCC) said that the National Assembly should be the first set of people to blow whistle that there was an infringement in the NIMASA Act
Folarin urged the management of NIMASA to have a rethink on the concession contract.
He said: ``If NIMASA and the Navy are still in charge of maritime security, why then did government concession security to a private firm?’’
Capt. Johnson Ogun, former President, Nigerian Association of Master Mariners, (NAMM) said that Nigeria could not operate in isolation of IMO and advised that government should drop the contract so as not to make Nigeria a laughing stock.
Ogun wondered why stakeholders were not contacted earlier by NIMASA to discuss this.
The Publicity Secretary, Nigerian Mariners’ Council (NMC), Capt. Bodunrin Onwordi, said that NIMASA had made a mockery of the maritime industry with the maritime security contract.
Capt. Niyi Adeyemo, a former President of NAMM, said that the concession was carried out with parochial interest by its promoters rather than the interest of the greater number of Nigerians.
NAMM General Secretary, Capt. Jide Olugunwa, said that the initiative contravened international best practices.
Mr Eugene Nweke, President, National Association of Government Approved Freight Forwarders (NAGAFF), said that the contract called for question, saying that the Navy and NIMASA should be assigned the responsibility of total security of the sea.
Nweke also raised a question about the track record of the concessionaire whose antecedents were not known.
Prince Olayiwola Shittu, President, Association of Nigerian Licensed Customs Agents (ANLCA) said that NIMASA made hard currencies and was one of the richest government organisations, advising that it should not fail in its obligation and must buy all the equipment it needs.
Akpobolokemi said that the concession of maritime domain security was not designed to cede the agency’s responsibilities to a private firm.
He said that the maritime security contract was awarded to the private firm to build operational capability for the agency. The Director-General of NIMASA, said that Nigerian waters had become vulnerable to all kinds of illicit activities and that ships coming into Nigerian waters paid high insurance premiums and the burden passed to the final consumers.
He added that the concession was designed solely to take off the responsibility of acquisition of platforms to carry out maritime security and that the agency lacked the competence to manage boats.
“The essence is to take that burden off NIMASA and give a private sector operator qualified in the business of running vessels,’’ Akpobolokemi said.
According to the director-general, the contract was mainly to get private sector to supply NIMASA with platforms of enforcement of maritime safety, security, cabotage, pollution control as well as search and rescue.
He explained that GWVSL would maintain the crew, pay them and keep the vessels in good working order so that at anytime NIMASA wanted to deploy the vessels, they would be in good working condition.
Government, he said, would not spend a dime since the contract was more of a contractor-financed project.
The director-general said that for the few resources of the agency to be technically allocated, there was need to explore the opportunity of PPP.
He said that NIMASA had the approvals of Infrastructure Concession Regulatory Commission (ICRC); Bureau of Public Procurement (BPP); and the Federal Ministry of Transport before proceeding to award the contract to the private firm.
“Initially the contract is going to last for 10 years based on satisfactory performance, but subject to renewal at the discretion of NIMASA.
“NIMASA has the prerogative to ask for the discontinuation of the concession if the concessionaire is not performing to its satisfaction,’’ Akpobolokemi said.
While the controversies continue amid defense by government officials, the Association of Master Mariners vehemently rejected the concession contract.
Its Vice President, Capt. Emmanuel Omotayo, described the concession of the nation’s maritime security to a private concern as embarrassing.
He said that initially the association did not believe the nation’s coasts had been concessioned.
“We are vehemently against the set up of the present situation by giving the coast to a private firm.
“We have always advocated for a Coast Guard under the supervision of Nigerian Maritime Administration and Safety Agency and we have not changed that position,’’ Omotayo said.
He said that the Coast Guard would bring a lot of professionals like retired Navy officers, young graduates, marine engineers and the Merchant Navy to work together.
We are all embarrassed and set back with the naming of a private firm to man the nation’s coasts, he said.
The mariner described shipping as an international business, adding that when ``our coasts and ports are open to private individuals, everybody will take laws into his hands’’.
Omotayo recalled that the association’s idea was to drop the Maritime Security Agency (MASECA) Bill and was surprised that after this, the job had been given to a private firm.
When our coasts are not in line with international community, we would be isolated, he said.
A way out of the controversies as suggested by stakeholders is for government to call all stakeholders together for a meeting on the issue.
