ANLCA/NAGAFF Enforcement Teams: Collapse of Regulatory Environment In Maritime Industry

In February, 2020, the National Association of Government Approval Freight Forwarders (NAGAFF) inaugurated a compliance team meant to expose corruption among the service providers.

The team is also to evaluate the performance of the terminal operators with a view to determining their operational efficiencies.

It was to beam its searchlight on the APM, reputed to be the biggest and most influential.

The Association of Nigerian Licensed Customs Agents (ANLCA), a sister group, took a cue from its rival association when it also set up its own compliance team late July, 2020.

While ANLCA team was still trying to settle down to its task of fighting corruption and tackling operational challenges which its members are faced with in the daily discharge of their duties, NAGAFF had already gone into a full blown action.

Last week, the NAGAFF team reportedly shut an erring bonded terminal for breach of operational procedures.

This development has exposed a fundamental flaw in the regulatory environment in the maritime industry.

It has exposed the weakness and timidity of the relevant regulatory agencies who are charged with the task of which the two freight forwarding associations have clearly usurped.

The action of the two groups has clearly shown the soft underbelly of the Nigerian Shippers Council, The Nigerian Ports Authority (NPA), the Nigeria Customs Service and the Council for the Regulation of Freight Forwarding Practice in Nigeria (CRFFN).

We are sad that the action of these two associations has signaled the collapse of regulatory environment in the industry.

We must salute the courage of NAGAFF and its sister association, ANLCA, for taking these practical steps of taking charge of their own destinies as the regulatory agencies statutorily saddled with these responsibilities must have relapsed into a deep slumber.

Even though their action, as far as we are concerned, was a flagrant usurpation of the statutory duties of these agencies, we shall excuse the audacity of the associations which have to fill the vacuum created by the slumbering government agencies.

One of the statutory duties of the Shippers’ Council as the economic regulator is to set, monitor and enforce standard of service delivery, ensure stability, predictability and accessibility and adequacy of the services.

These functions impact on the operational capacity and efficiency of the terminal operators for which the two associations set up their teams to assess.

The activities of bonded terminals are within the legal purview of the Customs which approves the facilities for which the operators enter into a bond with the agency while the NPA, which facilitated their set up, regulates their activities.

So, when NAGAFF compliance team shut Denca bonded facility, it was assuming the role of a regulator.

The CRFFN, which is a regulatory agency of the freight forwarding industry to which the two associations belong, could have even been more suited to assume this role.

Even at that, the Council does not have the power to go full hog of closing down a licensed bonded facility without recourse to the appropriate agencies.

But when the Council has since gone into a coma, it would not be out of place if two of its federating units take up the challenge.

We are bewildered at the tragic turn of events when the situation in the industry has degenerated to the level where an association would now assume the role of a regulator.

It is a sad commentary on the capacity of the industry regulators to assert themselves.

Even though there is a divided opinion among the stakeholders over the legality of the action of the two associations, but we are concerned more of the implications of what we regard as their breach of statutory duties of the regulators.

In as much as the association can picket an organisation or company, shutting a licensed bonded facility as NAGAFF team did is biting more than what they could chew.

Our fear is that if this dangerous trend is not checked, then any group can wake up tomorrow and shut a facility on the pretext of operational inadequacies of such operator.

We concede to the associations the right to challenge the oppressive operational environment but we want to advise restraints on the part of the freight forwarding groups on their mode of expressing their grievances in order not to send a wrong signal to the intending local and foreign investors.

We agreed with the concerns of the associations, especially the ANLCA, that the operating environment has become toxic, a jungle where law and order took a flight, where corruption has been entrenched and operational challenges have hampered productivity.

But we need to advise the association to first cleanse its house.

We are amused by the fight against corruption which the two associations claimed they wanted to engage in.

We commend them for this initiative but to what extent can they push this fight without inflicting damage on their own.

It takes two to tango, so says a popular axiom.

There would be no receiver if there is know giver.

Often times, it has been found that the freight forwarders are those who induce the service providers in the Customs, shipping companies and terminal operations with money in a bid to circumvent the rules of engagement.

How compliant are the Customs brokers to the extant rules and guidelines on documentation and cargo clearance procedures?

We know that non-compliance fuels the very corruption the associations set to expose.

How far this fight can go remains to be seen given the propensity for sleazy activities among the service providers and service receivers.

Nevertheless, we urge the relevant government agencies whose territories have been encroached by these ambitious groups to rise up from their slumber and reclaim their mandate.

Failure to rise up to the occasion by these agencies would have validated the invasion of their territories by the associations.

After all, nature abhors a vacuum.