Connect with us

Blue Economy

Nigeria’s Coast Guard Bill: A Solution in Search of a Problem?

Published

on

Stay connected via Google News
Follow us for latest news and information on Nigeria water ways.
Add as preferred source on Google
The bill to establish a Nigerian Coast Guard has refused to die quietly.
First introduced in 2021 by Senator Akon Eyakenyi during the 9th Senate, it was revived in late 2024 under the sponsorship of Senator Wasiu Eshinlokun (APC-Lagos), passing its second reading in October 2024.
Its stated ambition is bold: create a full-fledged military service branch under the Ministry of Marine and Blue Economy, charged with maritime security, law enforcement, and search-and-rescue operations across Nigeria’s 853-kilometre coastline and approximately 10,000 kilometres of inland waterways.
The response from virtually every major stakeholder has been swift and overwhelming — opposition.

Why the Navy Says No

The Nigerian Navy’s resistance is not merely institutional protectionism. At the December 2024 public hearing convened by the Senate Committee on Marine Transport, the Navy presented a substantive case rooted in both domestic realities and global precedent.
Rear Admiral Olusegun Ferreira, representing the Chief of Naval Staff, drew on international examples to challenge the bill’s logic, pointing out that the United Kingdom does not operate a Coast Guard with military powers. Instead, the Royal Navy handles military defence and maritime security, while the UK Coast Guard, operating under the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, manages search-and-rescue and occupational safety as essentially a civilian and volunteer body.
The Navy’s core argument is that Nigeria already has a functioning maritime security architecture. Beyond the Navy itself, agencies including NIMASA, the Nigerian Inland Waterways Authority, the Nigeria Police Marine Unit, and Nigeria Customs Marine Unit all operate within the same maritime domain.
Adding a Coast Guard with overlapping military powers, the Navy contends, would not strengthen this architecture — it would fracture it.

Why Was the Bill Proposed at All?

Supporters of the bill, including the Minister of Marine and Blue Economy, Gboyega Oyetola, argue that Nigeria’s waterways face threats that existing agencies have simply failed to contain — rampant boat mishaps, illegal fishing costing billions of naira annually, pollution, unregulated coastal development, and the persistent vulnerability of inland waterways. Their position is that the Navy’s primary orientation is military defence, and that a dedicated civilian-facing Coast Guard would fill a genuine governance and enforcement gap.
The argument has merit on its face. Many countries — including the United States — operate a Coast Guard distinct from their navy, precisely to manage the civilian, regulatory, and environmental dimensions of maritime governance that fall awkwardly within a military mandate.
However, the Nigerian proposal is not a civilian Coast Guard. The bill explicitly seeks to make the Coast Guard a full-fledged military service and a branch of the Armed Forces of Nigeria, which erases the very distinction that justifies a Coast Guard’s existence in most countries.

A Security Threat in the Making?

Beyond duplication, there is a darker concern. Security analysts warn that without a clearly defined mandate and strategic alignment with existing agencies; the proposed Coast Guard could complicate Nigeria’s already crowded maritime security domain.
The National Security Adviser, Mallam Nuhu Ribadu, has reportedly rejected the bill, citing intelligence reports suggesting that militant factions from the Niger Delta are already forming organizations in anticipation of absorption into the proposed structure. If accurate, the Coast Guard risks becoming not a security institution but a pipeline for legitimising armed groups — a profound threat in a region with a long history of militancy.

The Fiscal Absurdity

Senator Adams Oshiomhole put the financial dimension bluntly: “It is imprudent to take loans to establish a new agency when existing structures can be strengthened.”
Nigeria is a country where the Navy already operates under severe budgetary strain. House Committee chairman Gagdi was direct: “We have a Navy that is working hard but suffocated. It would be irrational to consider another agency when the Navy is not adequately funded.”
The cost of establishing a new military service branch — recruitment, training, equipment, platforms, jetties, uniforms, salaries, pensions — would run into hundreds of billions of naira, money Nigeria does not have and would likely borrow.

What Should Government Do Instead?

The consensus from the Navy, lawmakers, security experts, and civil society groups is clear, even if the government has been slow to hear it: fix what exists before building something new.
Concretely, this means adequately funding the Nigerian Navy to expand its operational reach, particularly on inland waterways where its presence is thin. It means strengthening NIMASA’s regulatory and enforcement capacity, reforming NIWA to better police inland waterways, and improving coordination and intelligence-sharing between the multiple agencies already operating in the maritime space. It also means addressing the legal and regulatory gaps in maritime safety enforcement — the kind of work that does not require a new institution, only the political will to resource and reform existing ones.
If Nigeria genuinely needs a civilian body focused on environmental protection, search-and-rescue, and inland waterway safety — functions the Navy is structurally ill-suited to prioritize — the answer is a lean, civilian Coast Guard clearly subordinate to civil authority, with no military powers, no armed mandate, and no overlap with naval operations. That is the model that works in countries like the UK. It is emphatically not what the current bill proposes.

The Danger of Duplication

The deeper problem the Coast Guard Bill exposes is a pattern that has long weakened Nigerian governance: the habit of creating new institutions rather than fixing broken ones. Every duplicate agency adds bureaucratic friction, jurisdictional disputes, and competition for resources. In the maritime domain, where coordination between agencies is already a documented weakness, adding another armed actor with an overlapping mandate is not a reform — it is a recipe for operational paralysis and, potentially, armed confrontation between agencies of the same government.
Nigeria’s waters deserve better. So does the public that depends on them.
Facebook Comments Box
Stay connected via Google News
Follow us for latest news and information on Nigeria water ways.
Add as preferred source on Google
Continue Reading
Advertisement
1 Comment

1 Comment

  1. Promise Nwaobilor

    March 31, 2026 at 7:45 pm

    Nigeria Coast guard should be signed under the law and it will help the society to get jobs in the country

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Blue Economy

Oyetola Woos Turkish Investors for Fisheries Sector, Vows to Protect Artisanal Fishers

Published

on

Stay connected via Google News
Follow us for latest news and information on Nigeria water ways.
Add as preferred source on Google

Oyetola Woos Turkish Investors for Fisheries Sector, Vows to Protect Artisanal Fishers

By Okeoghene Onoriobe | Waterways News

The Minister of Marine and Blue Economy, Dr Adegboyega Oyetola, has thrown Nigeria’s fisheries sector open to Turkish investment, insisting that any fresh capital coming into the industry must strengthen and not sideline the millions of Nigerians who depend on artisanal fishing for a living.

Oyetola made the pledge while receiving a delegation from Turkish fisheries and aquaculture firm CRD Impex, led by the company’s General Manager for Fisheries, Cem Tarhan, at his Abuja office. He told the investors the Federal Government was ready to create an investment-friendly climate for credible local and foreign players willing to bring capital, technology and modern value-chain solutions to the sector, on condition that such investment remains inclusive.

“We welcome investors who can bring capital, technology, expertise and modern value-chain solutions to the sector. However, investment must be inclusive and sustainable. It must complement and empower our artisanal fish producers, not undermine their livelihoods,” the Minister said

He listed inadequate infrastructure, poor access to modern fishing technology, weak cold-chain systems, limited processing and storage capacity, and gaps in market access as the major constraints holding back the sector, framing each as an opening for targeted investment rather than a dead end.

Advertisement

The Turkish team, which included CRD Impex founder Hanefi Cardak and Tetra Underwater Services founder Ersun Buyukgoze, toured key fisheries and aquaculture points around the country to size up the terrain first-hand. Stops included the Kirikiri Lighter Terminal in Lagos, the Ozumba Mbadiwe Fish Market in Lekki, and the Esuk Nsidung Beach Market, a major waterfront seafood hub in Calabar, Cross River State.

The Ministry described the visit as part of a broader push to attract serious investment into Nigeria’s blue economy while keeping the welfare of artisanal fishers central to that growth.

Nigeria Watch
The Turkish courtesy call lands squarely in the pattern this desk has tracked all year: big-ticket investment pledges for Nigeria’s waterways, paired with familiar assurances that the small operator won’t be crowded out. The test, as always, is what happens after the photo-op.

Nigeria’s artisanal fishing communities occupy the same economic space as the informal boat operators represented by WABOTAN and ATBOWATON, river- and creek-dependent Nigerians whose livelihoods rise or fall on decisions made far from the waterfront. The infrastructure gaps Oyetola cited which include, weak cold-chain systems, poor storage and limited market access, all mirror the exact complaints this desk has documented from inland waterway operators for years but modernisation announced from Abuja rarely reache the jetties.

Advertisement

Turkish capital chasing Nigerian fisheries and aquaculture is a genuinely new thread, distinct from the Strait of Hormuz shipping story or the CVFF disbursement saga this desk has followed closely. But the underlying question is the same one that has defined Oyetola’s tenure at the Ministry of Marine and Blue Economy: will “inclusive investment” translate into contracts, cooperative partnerships and cold-chain infrastructure that artisanal operators can actually use or will it, like so many blue-economy pledges before it, stall at the courtesy-visit stage?

Waterways News will be watching for the first concrete CRD Impex commitment — site, timeline, or local partnership — as the marker of whether this one is different.

Facebook Comments Box
Stay connected via Google News
Follow us for latest news and information on Nigeria water ways.
Add as preferred source on Google
Continue Reading

Blue Economy

NPERA, NPA Open Technical Talks on Handover of Inland Dry Port Functions

Published

on

Stay connected via Google News
Follow us for latest news and information on Nigeria water ways.
Add as preferred source on Google

NPERA, NPA Open Technical Talks on Handover of Inland Dry Port Functions

By Ighoyota Onaibre | Waterways News

The Nigerian Ports Economic Regulatory Agency (NPERA) and the Nigerian Ports Authority (NPA) have begun formal engagement on transferring inland dry port oversight to NPERA, marking the start of what both agencies describe as a critical phase in operationalising Nigeria’s new port regulatory framework.

At a management-level meeting between the two agencies, officials focused on the technical groundwork for the handover, chiefly how to draw clear lines of responsibility and avoid duplication among the government bodies with a stake in inland dry port administration.

NPERA’s Director-General/CEO, Dr Akutah Pius, framed the transition as flowing directly from the Minister of Marine and Blue Economy, Dr Adegboyega Oyetola, whom he credited with steering the process toward the sector’s broader development. Akutah was emphatic that NPERA could not carry out the transfer alone, and said the buy-in of every relevant stakeholder agency would be needed to see it through.

Advertisement

He indicated that the Ministry would stay central to coordinating the process even as specific mandates move to the agencies best placed to execute them. Akutah also pointed to the Minister’s earlier interventions during the NPERA Bill’s passage through the National Assembly, which he said had defused inter-agency friction and set the stage for the cooperation now underway.

Describing the purpose of the meeting, Akutah said it was meant to formally kick off the transfer of inland dry port responsibilities to NPERA in fulfilment of its statutory role as economic regulator of the ports sector. He singled out Section 51 of the NPERA Act as a provision that now needs to be put into practical effect to keep the transition orderly and ensure stakeholder roles are properly aligned.

To manage the process going forward, the NPERA boss proposed setting up a joint committee drawing in NPERA, NPA, the National Inland Waterways Authority (NIWA), and the Federal Ministry of Marine and Blue Economy. He argued that inland dry ports matter well beyond the coastline. They extend maritime sector benefits into Nigeria’s hinterland and reinforce the country’s trade and logistics chain.

Responding on behalf of NPA, Managing Director Dr Abubakar Dantsoho welcomed the move and pledged his agency’s full operational and technical backing throughout the transition. He said the process had started on the right footing, and that NPA would furnish updated data on the current state of inland dry ports to inform further discussions, expressing confidence that continued engagement would help the agencies meet their shared objectives.

Advertisement

NPA’s Executive Director, Engr. Lekan Badmus, also commended NPERA for setting the collaboration in motion, calling the meeting a solid first step toward a smooth integration. He noted the two agencies have now moved into the technical phase of the exercise, with close attention being paid to eliminating overlapping functions.

Closing the meeting, Akutah said the proposed joint committee would reconvene with the Minister to seek further guidance and agree on next steps to keep the transition on track.

Nigeria Watch
This meeting is the first visible test of whether the NPERA Act’s promise of a rationalised port regulatory architecture can survive contact with Nigeria’s crowded agency landscape. Section 51’s transfer of inland dry port functions to NPERA looks straightforward on paper; in practice, it touches NPA’s traditional port administration turf, NIWA’s inland waterways mandate, and the Ministry’s coordinating role all at once, precisely the kind of overlapping jurisdiction that has bedevilled reform efforts elsewhere in the sector, most visibly in the long-running NIWA-LASWA tussle that only the Supreme Court could settle.

The proposed joint committee of NPERA, NPA, NIWA, and the Ministry, is a sensible mechanism, but Waterways News readers who have followed the CVFF disbursement saga know that Nigerian maritime governance has no shortage of well-designed committees whose outputs never quite reach implementation. What will matter is whether Akutah’s “technical phase” produces a binding timeline, not another round of goodwill statements.

Advertisement

For inland dry port operators and the hinterland trade corridors that depend on them, the stakes are practical: unclear jurisdiction between NPA and NPERA has historically meant slower cargo evacuation, duplicated levies, and uncertainty for freight forwarders planning routes away from the congested Lagos ports. If this transition is handled well, it strengthens the case for dry ports as genuine pressure valves for Apapa and Tin Can. If it stalls in inter-agency turf negotiation, it becomes one more entry in the gap between policy pronouncement and delivery that this desk continues to track.

Worth watching: whether Minister Oyetola’s office sets an explicit deadline when the committee reconvenes, and whether NIWA, whose inland waterways mandate intersects with dry port hinterland connectivity, gets more than a seat at the table.

Facebook Comments Box
Stay connected via Google News
Follow us for latest news and information on Nigeria water ways.
Add as preferred source on Google
Continue Reading

Blue Economy

Two More Tankers Struck in Strait of Hormuz as Attack Count Hits Five in a Week

Published

on

Stay connected via Google News
Follow us for latest news and information on Nigeria water ways.
Add as preferred source on Google

Two More Tankers Struck in Strait of Hormuz as Attack Count Hits Five in a Week

By Okeoghene Onoriobe | Waterways News

Two more tankers have been hit while transiting the Strait of Hormuz, leaving two seafarers with minor injuries and pushing the number of reported attacks or security incidents against commercial vessels in the waterway to at least five since 16 September.

The UK Maritime Trade Operations (UKMTO) centre said an inbound tanker was struck by an unidentified projectile on Monday. Two crew members sustained minor injuries, but the vessel stayed under its own power and continued to its next port, with no environmental impact reported.

Hours later, UKMTO issued a second alert after an outbound LPG tanker reported being struck by debris from unknown projectiles. All crew were reported safe and the vessel also continued its voyage. Authorities are investigating both incidents, and UKMTO has not attributed either attack to a specific actor.

Advertisement

The two strikes build on a Joint Maritime Information Center (JMIC) advisory covering three earlier attacks between 16 and 18 September, one of which saw a tanker’s hull breached by a projectile, sparking a fire. JMIC continues to rate the threat level in the strait as “severe,” citing a high likelihood of deliberate hostile action and pointing to a pattern of harassment by Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps — drone overflights, surveillance of merchant vessels and VHF hailing, alongside the direct attacks.

Traffic through the chokepoint remains sharply depressed. Only 17 commodity vessels were visibly transiting over the weekend, down from 37 the week before and against a pre-war daily average of roughly 125. That figure excludes vessels sailing with their AIS transponders switched off, and JMIC notes a persistent gap between visible and actual traffic.

Nigeria Watch
For Nigerian maritime stakeholders, the Hormuz crisis is no longer a distant Gulf story. It is a cost line. Every fresh escalation feeds directly into the war-risk insurance premiums and freight rates that Nigerian importers, refiners and shipping agents ultimately absorb, since global tanker and container capacity pulled off the Hormuz route tightens supply elsewhere and pushes rates up across long-haul trades, including those serving West African ports.

The renewed attacks also sharpen the stakes around Nigeria’s push for a stronger voice at the IMO Council table and its broader blue-economy diplomacy under Minister Adegboyega Oyetola. A sustained Gulf disruption is exactly the kind of systemic shock that tests whether Nigeria’s seat translates into influence over how global shipping risk, insurance and rerouting decisions are made, rather than Nigeria simply absorbing the downstream cost.

Advertisement

Locally, the episode is a reminder of the layered nature of “maritime security” as a policy word: the Deep Blue Project and Gulf of Guinea security architecture address piracy and armed robbery close to home, but Nigeria’s ports and shippers remain exposed to security failures thousands of kilometres away in the Gulf.

Waterways News will continue tracking how the Hormuz situation feeds into freight cost pressure at Nigerian ports and NIMASA’s public messaging on the issue.

Facebook Comments Box
Stay connected via Google News
Follow us for latest news and information on Nigeria water ways.
Add as preferred source on Google
Continue Reading

Trending