Blue Economy
$4,000 War Surcharge: MSC Shipping Move Threatens Nigeria’s Maritime Sector, Stokes Inflation Fears
$4,000 War Surcharge: MSC Shipping Move Threatens Nigeria’s Maritime Sector, Stokes Inflation Fears
By Okeoghene Onoriobe | News Correspondent, Waterways News (www.waterwaysnews.ng)
A wave of anxiety is sweeping through Nigeria’s maritime industry following the decision by MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company to impose a war risk surcharge of up to $4,000 on cargo shipments bound for Nigeria and other African countries — a development industry stakeholders warn could trigger a fresh round of inflation and deal a severe blow to the nation’s already stressed trade ecosystem.
MSC announced on its website that effective March 5, 2026, until further notice, it will apply the surcharge on all cargo moving from the Arabian Peninsula — including Bahrain, Iraq, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE — to West Africa, East Africa, South Africa, Mozambique, and the Indian Ocean Islands.
The charges are structured as follows: $2,000 for 20-foot containers, $3,000 for 40-foot containers, and $4,000 for refrigerated (reefer) cargo.
“The evolving security situation in the Middle East is affecting maritime traffic in the Straits of Hormuz and Bab El-Mandeb and causing disruption throughout our network,” MSC stated, adding that it is working with relevant authorities to ensure the safety of its operations.
Industry Voices Alarm
Maritime and trade experts who spoke with Waterways News expressed serious concern over the ripple effects the surcharge will have on Nigeria’s import-dependent economy.
Former acting National President of the National Association of Nigerian Licensed Customs Agents, Mr. Kayode Farinto, said the surcharge was largely inevitable given the deteriorating security situation along key shipping routes.
“Any shipping company bringing cargo will want to charge. Most insurance companies are already dropping policies because of this war, and the routes are being taken over by Iran. So shipping lines are being forced to manoeuvre and take alternative routes — possibly through South Africa — which increases costs,” Farinto explained.
He warned that the consequences would be far-reaching: cargo volumes will decline, freight rates will climb, and the prices of goods will rise as importers pass on overhead costs and insurance premiums to consumers. He added that products from the Dangote Refinery could also be affected, with the full impact expected to be felt more acutely in the coming weeks.
Muda Yusuf, Chief Executive Officer of the Centre for the Promotion of Private Enterprise, was equally blunt in his assessment.
“It’s going to affect trade significantly. Cost has already gone up and may go higher. If costs rise that much, trade volumes will drop — and that means less business for the maritime industry, job losses, loss of income, and a whole lot of issues that will cascade through the sector,” he said.
Manufacturers Sound Export Warning
The manufacturing sector is also bracing for impact. Dr. Benedict Obhiosa, Secretary of the Manufacturers Association of Nigeria Export Group, said the surcharge would erode the competitiveness of Nigerian-made products in international markets.
“The hike in prices will discourage exports and affect the volume and value of non-oil exports in the current and possibly the next quarter, if the problem is not resolved by the Nigerian government and shipping authorities,” Obhiosa said. He noted, however, that some exporters may pivot to road transport as an alternative.
Freight Forwarders Demand Government Intervention
The Africa Association of Professional Freight Forwarders and Logistics of Nigeria (APFFLON) has described the surcharge as a major economic shock that could deepen Nigeria’s vulnerability as an import-dependent nation.
In a strongly worded statement, APFFLON’s National President, Frank Ogunojemite, warned that Nigeria — which relies on maritime transport for over 80 percent of its international trade — faces sharp increases in the prices of food and pharmaceuticals, with reefer containers carrying frozen foods, dairy products, fish, and medicines bearing the heaviest burden.
Ogunojemite called on the Federal Government, the Ministry of Marine and Blue Economy, the Nigerian Shippers’ Council, and other maritime regulators to urgently engage international shipping lines and global maritime stakeholders to cushion the impact of the surcharges on Nigerian trade.
Blue Economy
MAERSK Vessel Grounds at Onne, Chokes Bonny Channel as Port Harcourt Traffic Grinds to Halt
MAERSK Vessel Grounds at Onne, Chokes Bonny Channel as Port Harcourt Traffic Grinds to Halt
MV Maersk Valparaiso stuck in mud with 717 containers aboard; NPA, NIMASA alerted as Bonny Anchorage congestion deepens
By ThankGod Miller | Waterways News Correspondent | Onne/Port Harcourt | Thursday, May 21, 2026
A serious navigational incident at Onne Port has brought vessel traffic across the eastern corridor to a standstill, after the Maersk container vessel MV Maersk Valparaiso (Voyage 621S) collided with a barge on the Bonny Channel on Tuesday, subsequently running aground and blocking the waterway.
The vessel, laden with an estimated 717 containers, is reported to have taken a wrong channel while manoeuvring toward Berth 4 at Onne after passing Bonny. The resulting grounding has lodged the ship firmly in the mud, rendering it immovable by normal tidal action — frustrating early hopes among those involved that the situation would self-correct.
The development effectively sealed off both Onne Port and Port Harcourt Port from seaward access, with vessels that have completed cargo discharge unable to depart and inbound ships unable to proceed to berth. Congestion at Bonny Anchorage has since been mounting.
Incident Concealed for Three Days
Particularly alarming to industry observers is the revelation that the incident occurred approximately three days before it became publicly known. The Shipping Trade Practitioners Association of Nigeria (STPAN) confirmed to Waterways News that those initially involved withheld the information, banking on tidal conditions to free the vessel without intervention.
“This incident happened three days ago but it was only made known yesterday. When it happened three days ago, they thought the tide would help the vessel to move, but the vessel is already stuck in the mud and it cannot move,” said Dr. Babalola Olatunde, STPAN’s spokesman.
The delay in disclosure has drawn implicit criticism, as the blockage has had cascading consequences across multiple terminals. Dr. Olatunde cited the case of MV Jamal Topic at Berth 2, Port Harcourt Port, which completed discharge but has been unable to sail due to the channel obstruction.
MWUN: Wrong Channel Was Taken
The President-General of the Maritime Workers Union of Nigeria (MWUN), Comrade Francis Bunu Abi, confirmed the grounding and pointed to navigational error as the root cause. According to him, the Maersk Valparaiso deviated from the established vessel channel while approaching Onne.
“They said the vessel actually took a wrong channel, not the normal channel other vessels were taking,” Comrade Abi stated.
The Nigerian Ports Authority (NPA) and the Nigerian Maritime Administration and Safety Agency (NIMASA) have both been notified and are expected to coordinate the emergency response, which is likely to require specialised salvage operations to refloat the grounded vessel and reopen the channel.
Nigeria Watch
The Onne grounding is a sharp reminder of the navigational vulnerabilities embedded in Nigeria’s southern port approach channels — and of the risks that attend any delay in incident disclosure.
The Bonny Channel, which serves both Onne Port and Port Harcourt Port, is among the most commercially critical waterways in the country, handling a substantial share of Nigeria’s petroleum-related imports, containerised cargo, and bulk commodities. Any protracted blockage carries severe consequences: demurrage costs for vessel operators, supply chain disruption for terminal users, and revenue losses for the NPA and government.
The three-day silence before the incident was made public is troubling. It suggests that the instinct of those involved was to manage the situation discreetly — a posture that, in the end, compounded the problem by delaying the mobilisation of appropriate salvage resources. NIMASA’s mandate over maritime safety and casualty investigation should include a close examination of how the notification failure occurred and who bears responsibility.
For port users, freight forwarders, and vessel operators with cargo interests at Onne and Port Harcourt, the immediate concern is the timeline for channel clearance. Waterways News will continue to monitor developments and report updates as the salvage operation progresses
Blue Economy
Lagos Governorship Aspirant Jim-Kamal Targets State Control of Territorial Waters, Challenges Federal Revenue Model
Lagos Governorship Aspirant Jim-Kamal Targets State Control of Territorial Waters, Challenges Federal Revenue Model
APC contender vows to claim Lagos share of vessel-generated earnings, challenge Hyson Nigeria’s dollar revenue monopoly
By Okeoghene Onoriobe | Waterways News Correspondent
A Lagos governorship aspirant on the platform of the All Progressives Congress (APC), Otunba Lanre Jim-Kamal, has unveiled a sweeping maritime governance agenda anchored on reclaiming state authority over Lagos territorial waters and redirecting billions in vessel-generated revenues currently flowing exclusively to the Federal Government.
Speaking at a press conference in Lagos on Monday, Jim-Kamal laid out proposals that, if enacted, would significantly alter the revenue-sharing architecture governing maritime operations along Nigeria’s busiest coastal corridor — with implications for port operators, terminal concessionaires, shipowners, and the broader blue economy ecosystem in the southwest.
Staking Lagos’ Claim to Territorial Waters
At the heart of Jim-Kamal’s maritime agenda is a constitutional argument: that recent legislative and policy shifts have moved waterways governance from an exclusively federal domain to a concurrent one, enabling states with coastlines to assert jurisdictional and commercial rights over their adjacent waters.
“Before now, the control of the waterway was on the exclusive list, basically for the Federal Government, but today, in any state where there is water, it must be shared by the Federal and State governments,” he stated. “We in Lagos State want to control our territorial waters. This is part of the places we intend to generate revenue for this state.”
He pledged to pursue this through structured collaboration with the Federal Ministry of Marine and Blue Economy rather than outright confrontation, describing the approach as strategic synergy designed to formalise Lagos State’s stake in waterway commercialisation.
“Before now, the control of the waterway was on the exclusive list, basically for the Federal Government, but today, in any state where there is water, it must be shared by the Federal and State governments,” he stated. “We in Lagos State want to control our territorial waters. This is part of the places we intend to generate revenue for this state.”
Hyson Nigeria in the Crosshairs
Perhaps the most commercially significant element of Jim-Kamal’s proposals is his declared intention to challenge the operational monopoly of Hyson Nigeria Limited — the body responsible for collecting dollar-denominated levies from crude oil evacuation vessels transiting Nigerian waters.
Under current arrangements, all revenues collected from tankers loading crude within Nigeria’s exclusive economic zone accrue entirely to the Federal Government. Jim-Kamal described this as an inequity that Lagos, as the state within whose territorial domain much of the vessel activity occurs, can no longer afford to accept. “There is a board in Nigeria called Hyson Nigeria Limited. The work of that body is that all vessels coming to Nigeria to take our oil out — it is only the Federal Government that collects revenue from them in dollars,” he said. “One of the first bills I will send to the State Assembly is that we want to control Hyson Limited, because they are coming to our land. Maritime business will thrive seriously under my watch.”
The proposal, if translated into legislation and successfully defended before the courts and the National Assembly, would constitute one of the most consequential challenges to Federal maritime revenue authority in recent years.
$50 Billion Investment Package with Blue Economy Dimension
Jim-Kamal also disclosed that he has secured commitments from international partners to direct a $50 billion foreign investment package into Lagos across multiple sectors, with coastal and waterway infrastructure identified as a priority vehicle for revenue generation and job creation. He gave no further details on the identity of the investment partners or the disbursement timeline.
Beyond maritime, the aspirant outlined a broad social welfare programme encompassing a N150,000 monthly lifetime stipend for citizens aged 60 and above, free education and healthcare, housing support for unemployed youths, and mechanised agriculture schemes — all framed within the revenue headroom that waterway monetisation would, in his projection, create for the state.
APC Primary Dynamics
On the party’s internal race, Jim-Kamal dismissed reports that Deputy Governor Obafemi Hamzat had secured a consensus endorsement from key APC power brokers, insisting that only five of the thirty-member Governor’s Advisory Council (GAC) had backed Hamzat and that media amplification had distorted the picture. He praised President Bola Tinubu as committed to open primaries and urged aspirants to pursue the ticket through legitimate party processes.
Nigeria Watch | What Jim-Kamal’s Maritime Agenda Means for the Sector
For maritime and port sector stakeholders, the Jim-Kamal proposals are worth tracking beyond their electoral context. The question of whether Lagos State can assert a statutory revenue stake in vessel operations within its territorial waters cuts to the unresolved tension at the heart of Nigeria’s maritime federalism debate.
NIWA currently governs inland waterways on a federal mandate, while NIMASA exercises jurisdiction over cabotage, vessel registration, and coastal shipping under national legislation. The establishment of the Federal Ministry of Marine and Blue Economy under the Tinubu administration has, in theory, opened constitutional space for a more layered governance model — though no state has yet tested those boundaries in a commercially meaningful way.
A Lagos State bid to legislate control over Hyson Nigeria Limited — or to compel revenue-sharing from crude evacuation vessel fees — would face formidable legal hurdles, including potential conflict with NIMASA’s enabling statute and Nigeria’s continental shelf legislation. However, the political salience of the argument is itself significant: it signals growing appetite among subnational actors to monetise the blue economy assets within their geographic reach, a trend that terminal operators, port service providers, and offshore logistics firms operating in Lagos waters would do well to monitor. Should any future Lagos administration pursue such a legislative agenda with genuine momentum, it could trigger a renegotiation of the revenue and regulatory frameworks that currently govern maritime commercial activity along the Apapa-Tin Can-Badagry corridor — and reshape the operating environment for every stakeholder along that value chain.
Declining War Risk Surcharge Validates Nigeria’s Maritime Security Gains, Says NIMASA
Agency intensifies global campaign to end $400m annual drain on Nigerian trade as Deep Blue Project sustains piracy-free record
By Emetena Ikuku | Waterways News Correspondent, Lagos
The gradual reduction in war risk surcharges being applied to vessels calling at Nigerian ports is a direct reflection of the country’s dramatically improved maritime security environment, the Nigerian Maritime Administration and Safety Agency (NIMASA) has said, even as the agency steps up international pressure to achieve the complete abolition of the levies.
NIMASA Director-General Dr. Dayo Mobereola, whose administration has placed the war risk insurance (WRI) campaign at the centre of its maritime reform agenda, made the point while stressing that Nigeria has not recorded a single piracy incident in over three years, and in 2021, the International Maritime Bureau (IMB) officially removed Nigeria from its list of piracy-prone countries.
Despite this milestone, the financial burden on Nigerian trade remains severe. Available figures indicate that Nigeria has paid over $1.5 billion in the past three years alone to Lloyd’s of London, Protection and Indemnity (P&I) insurance, and other foreign insurance firm. At the vessel level, the impact is equally stark: a Very Large Crude Carrier (VLCC) valued at $130 million attracts a WRI surcharge of about $445,000 per voyage, while newer container vessels valued at $150 million face costs of up to $525,000 per voyage.
Deep Blue Record Goes Unacknowledged
NIMASA attributes Nigeria’s clean security record to sustained investment in the Integrated Maritime Security Architecture. The Deep Blue Project has successfully eliminated piracy in the country’s waters for over 30 consecutive months — a record unmatched anywhere in the world.
The IMO has taken note: IMO Secretary-General Arsenio Dominguez has publicly commended Nigeria’s efforts in securing the Gulf of Guinea. In 2023, the International Bargaining Forum (IBF) further validated Nigeria’s progress by delisting the country from the list of high-risk maritime nations. Yet, the agency says, shipowners and underwriters have been slow to translate these verified gains into meaningful premium reductions.
Dr. Mobereola has been direct in his characterisation of the problem. He argued that war risk premiums are not being determined by actual risk levels but by a cartel profiting from the status quo, and that even a decade of zero incidents would not result in reductions unless Nigeria forces the issue.
Surcharges Compound Cost of Trade
The WRI levy is not the only additional cost weighing on Nigerian-bound cargo. Maersk has introduced a transit disruption surcharge of up to $450 per container, while other shipping lines impose a war risk surcharge of $40 to $50 per 20-foot equivalent unit. The compounding effect of these charges falls hardest on importers, freight forwarders, and ultimately consumers. NIMASA estimates that full abolition of the WRI on Nigerian routes could save the country upwards of $400 million annually in unnecessary insurance payments to foreign underwriters.
Diplomatic Offensive Widens
NIMASA has escalated the campaign across multiple international forums. Under the directives of the Minister of Marine and Blue Economy, Adegboyega Oyetola, Dr. Mobereola took Nigeria’s case to international stakeholders, urging them to support the removal of war risk insurance premiums. In a major diplomatic move, he engaged Chatham House, where he met with Dr. Alex Vines, Director of the Africa Programme, who agreed to escalate the matter to the United Nations. The agency has also engaged directly with the world’s leading shipowner and cargo associations — BIMCO, the International Chamber of Shipping (ICS), INTERCARGO, and INTERTANKO — pressing each body to formally recognise Nigeria’s changed security profile and advocate for premium reductions with their underwriting partners.
The responses have been cautiously encouraging. Stinne Taiger Ivo, Deputy Secretary General of BIMCO, acknowledged Nigeria’s progress and stated that shipowners should take the lead in pushing for lower premiums. Zhou Xianyong of INTERCARGO similarly assured NIMASA of support in Nigeria’s campaign to be delisted from war risk insurance premium zones.
Structural Obstacles Remain
Stakeholders caution that diplomatic goodwill alone will not resolve the issue. Security analysts have pointed to procedural anomalies that distort Nigeria’s risk rating in global underwriters’ assessments. Stakeholders argue that routing incident reports through Abidjan instead of the Nigerian Navy delays responses and unfairly worsens Nigeria’s security rating, and that misalignment between Best Management Practices West Africa protocols and Nigeria’s own security procedures distorts the country’s image.
The Head of Research at Sea Empowerment and Research Centre, Eugene Nweke, has lamented that despite reported improvements, high international war risk assessments continue to burden port users. Former NIMASA Director-General Temisan Omatseye has also urged that inter-agency coordination be strengthened, arguing that the Nigerian Navy alone cannot carry the entire security burden and that the Marine Police, Customs, and Immigration must each fulfil their statutory maritime responsibilities.
Nigeria Watch — Analysis for Port Sector Stakeholders
The modest reduction in war risk surcharges now being observed is a positive signal, but the battle for full abolition remains unfinished. For terminal operators, freight forwarders, and shipowners operating on Nigerian routes, the persistence of WRI adds a systemic cost layer that erodes competitiveness relative to other West African hubs. Every container bearing a $40–$50 war risk levy, stacked on top of Maersk’s $450 transit disruption charge, translates directly into elevated landed costs for goods passing through Apapa, Tin Can Island, and Onne.
NIMASA’s strategy — combining diplomatic pressure through Chatham House and the UN, direct engagement with BIMCO and INTERTANKO, and the moral authority of a verified four-year piracy-free record — is structurally sound. The weak link remains the procedural architecture around incident reporting and the continuing misalignment between BMP West Africa and Nigerian Navy protocols, which feed underwriters’ models with data that overstates residual risk. Until those reporting pipelines are fixed, Lloyd’s and the P&I clubs will retain a technical basis for maintaining elevated premiums regardless of the political pressure NIMASA brings to bear.
The broader implication for the port sector is this: a successful outcome would not merely reduce freight costs. It would materially improve Nigeria’s competitiveness as a transshipment and cargo destination, strengthen the economics of the proposed national shipping line, and reduce the dollar outflow from an already pressured foreign exchange environment.
NIMASA’s DG is right that Nigeria cannot win this fight alone — but the agency is assembling the coalition it needs.
-
Oil and Gas2 months agoTantita’s Pipeline Deal: $144m Contract, Rising Output, and the Questions that Deserve Answers
-
Blue Economy3 months agoNigeria’s Coast Guard Bill: A Solution in Search of a Problem?
-
MARITIME TRADE & SHIPPING2 months agoWorld’s Largest Container Ship Sets New Maritime Record with 22,233 TEUs on Single Voyage