LAGOS — Principal Consultant, International Trade Services Ltd., Okey IBEKE, has called for a clear delineation of responsibilities between the newly established Nigerian Ports Economic Regulatory Agency (NPERA) and the Nigerian Ports Authority (NPA) to prevent jurisdictional conflicts and ensure the effective implementation of the new ports economic regulatory framework.
Ibeke, in a statement issued in Lagos on Sunday, said the presidential assent to the Nigerian Ports Economic Regulatory Agency NPERA Act, 2026, represented an important milestone in Nigeria’s efforts to establish a permanent statutory framework for economic regulation of the nation’s seaports.
He, however, warned that unless the powers of NPERA were carefully distinguished from the statutory responsibilities of the NPA and other maritime agencies, the new legislation could create another layer of institutional rivalry in an industry already characterised by overlapping mandates.
According to him, the creation of NPERA provides an opportunity to strengthen transparency, competition, service standards and accountability in the port economy, but its success will depend largely on how its powers are exercised alongside those of existing institutions.
“The critical question is where NPERA’s economic regulatory jurisdiction ends and the statutory responsibility of the Nigerian Ports Authority begins,” Ibeke said.
He noted that the Nigerian Shippers’ Council had for years performed economic regulatory functions under an interim arrangement, adding that the NPERA Act should now provide a stronger statutory foundation for regulating tariffs, competition, service standards and commercial disputes within the port sector.
Ibeke stressed, however, that economic regulation must not be confused with port administration.
He pointed out that the NPA remains the statutory port authority, with responsibilities relating to the provision, maintenance and improvement of port infrastructure, management of the port estate and the efficient administration of port operations.
He said the distinction had become particularly important following the Federal Government’s port reform programme and adoption of the landlord model, under which private terminal operators assumed cargo-handling and terminal-operating responsibilities while the NPA retained responsibility for port infrastructure and its relationship with concessionaires.
Concession administration
Ibeke identified the administration of port concessions as one of the areas requiring the clearest delineation of responsibilities.
He said NPERA should be able to regulate the economic performance of concessionaires, including compliance with approved tariffs, service standards, competition rules and fair treatment of port users.
“That is different from determining who receives a concession, negotiating its fundamental terms or administering the landlord interests of the NPA,” he said.
He recalled that earlier versions of the NPERA Bill had generated concerns over provisions relating to concession agreements and concession fees, particularly because of the possibility of overlapping responsibilities involving the NPA and the Infrastructure Concession Regulatory Commission.
According to him, such concerns should be resolved through clear implementation guidelines to prevent competing authorities over the same concession arrangements.
“If two institutions exercise competing authority over the same concession, the result will not be stronger regulation but greater uncertainty for government, operators, investors and port users,” he said.
Licensing and port charges
Ibeke also called for clarity over licensing powers under the new regulatory regime.
He explained that the port environment involves different categories of licences and approvals covering port facilities, economic services, shipping, safety, security, customs and professional activities.
He said NPERA’s role should be clearly distinguished from the authority responsible for granting operational or statutory licences.
“The distinction is between authorising an entity to operate a port facility and regulating the economic conditions under which an already authorised operator provides services,” he said.
The same principle, he added, should apply to port charges.
According to him, the NPA should retain its statutory authority over legitimate port dues and revenues arising from its functions as port authority and landlord, while commercial charges imposed by terminal operators, shipping companies and other service providers should be subject to appropriate economic scrutiny.
He argued that economic regulation should protect port users from arbitrary or anti-competitive charges without unnecessarily taking over the statutory functions of the port authority.
NPERA should not become a super-regulator
Ibeke further warned against turning NPERA into a “super-regulator” whose mandate extends into every activity that has an economic consequence in the maritime sector.
He said NPERA’s responsibility for service standards should focus on measurable economic and commercial outcomes rather than the day-to-day operational management of terminals or ports.
“For example, requiring a terminal operator to meet an agreed cargo-release standard is economic regulation. Directing how it allocates berths, deploys equipment or manages its daily operations is something different,” he said.
He maintained that the NPA must retain sufficient authority to coordinate the port environment, maintain infrastructure, manage port access and ensure efficient port operations.
Ibeke also noted that Nigeria already has several maritime institutions with interconnected responsibilities, including the Nigerian Maritime Administration and Safety Agency, the Nigeria Customs Service and other agencies responsible for security, immigration, health and trade.
He said the existence of an economic consequence should not automatically confer jurisdiction on NPERA.
“Navigation affects trade. Security affects commerce. Customs clearance affects costs. Infrastructure affects investment. But economic impact does not automatically confer jurisdiction,” he said.
Call for regulatory map
The Principal Consultant called on the Federal Ministry of Marine and Blue Economy, NPERA, NPA, NIMASA, Nigeria Customs Service, ICRC and other relevant stakeholders to develop a clear regulatory framework before implementation of the new law generates institutional disputes.
He said the framework should clearly establish who grants and administers port concessions, who regulates concession performance, who approves or reviews tariffs, who collects statutory port dues, who regulates commercial charges and who licenses port facilities and service providers.
It should also clarify responsibility for port operations, technical and safety regulation, as well as mechanisms for resolving disputes where agencies claim overlapping jurisdiction, he added.
According to him, regulatory certainty is essential to attracting investment, improving port efficiency and reducing the cost of doing business.
“No port economy can function efficiently where different government institutions can issue conflicting directives or claim authority over the same activity,” he said.
Ibeke said the ultimate measure of the NPERA Act should be its impact on port users rather than the breadth of powers accumulated by the new agency.
“If NPERA succeeds in curbing arbitrary charges, improving competition, enforcing service standards and providing effective redress for commercial disputes, it will fill an important gap in Nigeria’s port reform architecture,” he said.
He warned, however, that recurring disputes with the NPA over concessions, licences, infrastructure and port administration could undermine the objectives of the legislation.
Ibeke therefore advocated a clear institutional division under which the NPA remains the port authority and landlord, responsible for the port estate, infrastructure and functions assigned to it by law, while NPERA concentrates on the economic environment within which terminal operators, shipping companies and other commercial service providers operate.
“The NPERA Act should make the regulator an economic referee, not another landlord,” he said.
He added that the reform should strengthen, rather than weaken, existing maritime institutions by giving each agency clarity over its core statutory responsibilities.
“Nigeria does not need another turf war at the ports. It needs clear mandates, effective coordination and strong institutions capable of performing their respective functions.
“The real test of the NPERA Act will therefore not be the number of powers assigned to the new agency, but how intelligently those powers are exercised alongside the NPA Act and the mandates of other maritime institutions.
“NPERA should be the economic referee. NPA should remain the port authority and landlord. And the ultimate winner should be the Nigerian port user,” Ibeke said.
