Registration fee: Shippers’ Council’s bold move to restore sanity to shipping industry

Early this month of February, the Nigerian Shippers’ Council announced its intention to register all regulated service providers in the maritime industry.

The registration exercise attracts a regime of fees payable by different categories of service providers.

Expectedly, the move attracted widespread condemnation, anger and disappointment from the aggrieved players who felt this regime of fees is one too many.

Justifiably, they argued that it would be an additional financial burden on them, given different types of fees imposed by other regulatory bodies such as the Nigeria Maritime Administration and Safety Agency (NIMASA), Nigerian Ports Authority (NPA), Nigeria Customs Service and lately, Council for the Regulation of Freight Forwarding in Nigeria (CRFFN).

In as much as nigeriamaritime360.com concedes to them the right to express their emotion, their anger against this exercise is misplaced.

Before we are accused of bias and insensitivity by the angry service providers, we want to acknowledge their grievances and share in their grief and genuine concerns.

However we don’t believe that the decision of the Shippers’ Council to embark on this exercise is misplaced.

To us, it is even long overdue.

Our position, as unpopular as it may be among the aggrieved parties, is predicated on the statutory powers which the council has in this direction.

Nigerian Shippers’ Council (port economic) regulation 2015 sub 4(1) which the council relies on is unambiguous as to the powers of the body to embark on this exercise.

It states that “from the commencement of these regulations, every Regulated Service Providers at the Nigerian Ports shall be registered with the Council”.

Sub-section 4, in defining who the Regulated Service providers are states that “for the purpose of sub -regulation (1) of this Regulation, ‘ Regulated service providers “include Nigeria Ports Authority, Seaport Terminal Operators, Shipping companies and agencies, Off-Dock Terminal operators, Cargo consolidators, Logistics service providers, Freight Forwarders and clearing agents, Inland Container Depot operators, Stevedoring companies and any other port service provider and user.

This section clearly answers the query of some of the aggrieved operators such as Lucky Amiwero, the factional leader of the Council of Managing Directors of Licensed Customs Agents who questioned the legality of the exercise.

To us, we believe that the council is legally empowered to carry out this exercise but feels sad that it dithered a bit in carrying it out.

According to the legal instrument, the registration of service providers by the council should have been done at the coming to force of the economic regulatory role of the Council in 2015.

Why the council waited this long before it could muster enough courage to confront the issue is best known to its management.

If the legality of the Council to embark on the registration exercise has been established and acknowledged, we believe there should not be so much dust raised on the regime of fees attached to such exercise as is the current situation.

It stands to reason that such huge exercise will impose logistics challenges and expenses on the Council and the only way we believe this could be defrayed is to impose this fee which we regard as administrative cost.

To our mind, the outrage of the aggrieved operators is more against the fee imposed than the registration exercise itself.

Interestingly, each category of these service providers imposes all manner of fees and charges on the users of their services.

To profile the huge number of service providers plying their trade in the sector is no mean task that requires enormous human and material resources to execute.

And to imagine that such task, as statutory as it may be for the Council, should be done without financial commitment of the operators is preposterous.

This is why we regard it as the height of hypocrisy and mischief by these service providers to kick against the fee which to our mind is moderate and easily affordable by each category.

We are amused that shipping companies and terminal operators with their unbridled knack for extortion and plethora of indiscriminate charges would find it difficult to pay N100,000 as annual registration fee respectively, which translates to N8,333 monthly, less than N10,000.

It is equally less ridiculous for inland container deposit operators to kick against payment of N50,000 per annum as registration fee which translates to N4,166 per month, less than N5,000.

The same goes for Stevedoring companies, cargo consolidators, off dock terminal operators and warehouse operators with N20,000 per annum respectively which translates to N1,666 per month, less than N2,000.

In the same veins, freight forwarders and clearing agents and haulage operators with N10,000 per annum which translates to N833.3 per month, less than N1000.

The Shippers association with N5, 000 which translates to N416.7 per month , less than N500.

The least fee of N 1,000 is payable by shippers which translates to N83.3 per month, less than N100.

To us, this regime of fees is so negligible that it would be an exaggerated excuse that its payment would constitute additional burden on the operators.

We want to appeal to the agitating service providers to cooperate with the Council for successful and seamless registration exercise.

We believe that the exercise, which is meant to keep a tab on the number of genuine operators in the industry, will benefit the service providers in particular and the industry in general.

It will not only restore sanity and order to the operations at the port, the exercise will expose and flush out the merchants of fake and quackery services in the sector.

It is our belief that the Nigerian Shippers’ Council is beginning to be alive to its statutory responsibilities with this registration exercise as it will afford it to properly and adequately monitor and regulate the standard and quality of services rendered by the operators, the tariff, rates and charges applied by the operators, Cargo clearance procedures and process and any other relevant matter relating to the services rendered in the port industry.

This will not only boost quality of service delivery by the Regulated Service providers, but also engender healthy competition and efficiency in the sector.

We therefore appeal that rather than dissipating their energies in frustrating this lofty move by the Shippers’ Council, the service providers should rally round the body for better service delivery.

We hope that the council will not have to resort to using the sweeping powers which the 2015 port economic regulation grants the body to deal with recalcitrant operators before it is given the necessary support and encouragement to carry out this exercise.

The Shippers’ Council has an obligation to boost the confidence of the service providers through thorough and meticulous discharge of role for which this fee is being collected.

It is our belief that if the council diligently carries out this task and the service providers benefit from its dividends, they would not only give their unfettered support and committed loyalty to the council, they will not likely flinch at any possible upward review of the fee if need be in future.