Special Report
NIGERIA’S MARINE ECONOMY CRISIS: CAN ₦10.5B SAVE A SECTOR THAT HANDLES 90% OF TRADE? 2
Minister Oyetola’s Budget Plea Exposes Decade of Systematic Neglect
A Waterways News Special Report
Abuja, February 11, 2026
THE INLAND WATERWAYS OPPORTUNITY: CHEAP, SAFE, IGNORED
Nigeria’s heavy reliance on road transport for over 80 percent of freight movement is both economically irrational and infrastructurally destructive. Water transport is globally recognized as significantly cheaper than road haulage, yet Nigeria’s inland waterways remain chronically underfunded, unsafe, and underutilized.
The minister’s appeal for increased waterways funding was framed around safety—curbing accidents and loss of lives. But the economic argument is equally compelling. Shifting even 20 percent of current road freight to waterways would:
- Reduce road deterioration, extending the lifespan of highway infrastructure
- Lower logistics costs for manufacturers and distributors
- Decrease carbon emissions from heavy truck traffic
- Ease urban congestion in cities along major freight corridors
- Create new economic activity around river ports and inland terminals
Yet year after year, waterways receive token allocations that barely cover operational costs, much less the investment needed to make them viable alternatives. The proposed 2026 budget continues this pattern of benign neglect.
THE FISH IMPORT TRAP: FOOD SECURITY MEETS FOREX DRAIN
Nigeria’s fish sector presents one of the clearest cases for urgent investment. Annual demand exceeds 3.6 million metric tonnes. Domestic production struggles to reach 1.4 million metric tonnes. The deficit—over 2.2 million metric tonnes—is met through imports valued at more than one billion dollars annually.
This is not a luxury import situation. Fish is one of the most affordable sources of animal protein for Nigerian households, particularly in coastal and riverine communities. Yet the country spends over $1 billion yearly to import what it could theoretically produce domestically.
The situation is made worse by post-harvest losses of up to 30 percent, which further reduce already inadequate supply. These losses stem from poor storage facilities, inadequate cold chain infrastructure, and inefficient processing methods—all problems that require capital investment to solve.
The minister assured the committee that the ministry is “working hard to increase local fish production and reduce importation.” But without substantial budgetary support, such assurances ring hollow. You cannot build cold storage facilities, establish fish processing plants, or develop aquaculture infrastructure without capital.
The math is brutal but simple: spending ₦10.5 billion domestically to build fish production capacity makes far more economic sense than spending $1 billion (roughly ₦1.5 trillion at current exchange rates) annually on imports. Yet the budget reflects no such strategic thinking.
WHAT THIS BUDGET CAN ACHIEVE: A REALISTIC ASSESSMENT
If the ₦10.5 billion is approved and—critically—actually released, what might the ministry accomplish?
Minimal operational continuity is the minister’s own assessment, and there is no reason to dispute it. The budget allows for:
- Basic administrative functions: Paying salaries, maintaining offices, conducting routine oversight
- Essential maintenance: Keeping existing infrastructure from complete collapse
- Selective interventions: Perhaps a handful of small-scale pilot projects in priority areas
- Crisis management: Responding to immediate problems as they arise
What the budget cannot achieve:
- Meaningful port modernization to reduce congestion and improve efficiency
- Waterways infrastructure development to shift freight from road to water
- Aquaculture expansion to meaningfully close the fish production gap
- Maritime safety upgrades beyond bare-minimum equipment replacement
- Regulatory capacity building to match international standards
- Blue economy initiatives to tap ocean resources sustainably
In essence, this is a budget for survival, not growth. It keeps the ministry alive but does not enable it to fulfill its mandate. For a sector handling 90 percent of international trade, this represents a catastrophic failure of prioritization.
CRITICAL OVERSIGHTS: WHAT THE BUDGET IGNORES
Several glaring omissions undermine the budget’s already limited potential:
1. No Strategy for Reversing Agency Revenue Deductions
The budget proposal identifies excessive deductions as a core problem but offers no mechanism or dedicated allocation to negotiate, compensate for, or legally challenge these deductions. The agencies will continue bleeding revenue.
2. Insufficient Allocations for Safety and Emergency Response
Given the minister’s emphasis on waterways safety and recurring accidents, the budget should have included dedicated safety infrastructure spending—life jackets, rescue boats, communication equipment, training programs. These appear absent or inadequately funded.
3. No Meaningful Aquaculture Investment
Closing a 2.2 million metric tonne fish deficit requires industrial-scale aquaculture development. This demands hatcheries, feed mills, extension services, and farmer financing programs. The capital allocation shows no evidence of such ambition.
4. Port Technology Deficits Unaddressed
Modern ports run on digital systems—automated cargo handling, electronic documentation, real-time tracking. Nigeria’s ports lag decades behind. The budget includes no visible allocation for technology upgrades that could radically improve efficiency.
5. Climate Adaptation Ignored
As a maritime and fisheries ministry, climate change should be central to planning. Rising sea levels, ocean warming, and weather pattern changes directly affect all subsectors. The budget reflects no climate adaptation or mitigation strategy.
6. Private Sector Partnership Mechanisms Absent
Given fiscal constraints, the ministry should be aggressively pursuing public-private partnerships for infrastructure development. The budget includes no dedicated allocation for PPP structuring, feasibility studies, or transaction advisory services.
7. Human Capital Development Overlooked
Maritime expertise—naval architects, marine engineers, aquaculture specialists, port managers—requires continuous training and development. There is no evidence of a robust capacity-building allocation.
THE BOTTOMLINE: A SECTOR TOO CRITICAL TO FAIL, TOO NEGLECTED TO SUCCEED
Minister Oyetola’s budget presentation was, in essence, a cry for help dressed in bureaucratic language. Behind the technocratic terminology and fiscal jargon lies a stark reality: Nigeria is systematically undermining one of its most strategically vital sectors.
The marine and blue economy is not a discretionary concern. It is the foundation upon which Nigeria’s trade, commerce, and food security rest. When 90 percent of international trade moves through your ports, maritime efficiency becomes synonymous with economic competitiveness. When over 40 million people depend on fishing for livelihood, aquaculture becomes a matter of social stability.
Yet the budget treats this sector as an afterthought—not because policymakers are ignorant of its importance, but because immediate fiscal pressures consistently override long-term strategic thinking. The federal government’s approach resembles a homeowner who, facing a cash crunch, stops paying for roof repairs while the ceiling leaks. The short-term savings are real; the long-term costs are catastrophic.
Three fundamental truths emerge from this budget crisis:
First, the current model of funding the maritime sector is economically irrational. Self-funding agencies that generate substantial revenue should not be bled dry through excessive deductions. They should be strengthened, allowed to retain more of their earnings, and encouraged to expand operations. The federal government’s current approach is like taxing a successful business into bankruptcy.
Second, the disconnect between budget approval and budget release has become a farce. When only 1.7 percent of capital allocations actually reach the implementing ministry, the budget process itself loses credibility. Either approve realistic budgets and release funds, or stop pretending the paper allocations mean anything.
Third, the ministry needs at minimum a ten-fold budget increase to begin addressing its mandate seriously. ₦100 billion annually would still be modest for a sector of this importance, but it would at least enable strategic interventions rather than mere survival.
Senator Wasiu Eshilokun’s assurance that the National Assembly will “carefully examine the proposals” is welcome, but examination alone will not solve the underlying structural problems. The Senate and House committees have an opportunity—perhaps an obligation—to fundamentally rethink how Nigeria funds its maritime sector.
This might mean:
- Legislation protecting self-funding agency revenues from excessive deductions
- Multi-year funding commitments for major infrastructure projects
- Automatic budget release mechanisms tied to fiscal performance indicators
- Establishment of a dedicated blue economy development fund with guaranteed annual allocations
- Congressional oversight of the Accountant-General’s deduction policies
Without such structural reforms, the ₦10.5 billion budget—whether approved or not, whether released or not—will remain what Minister Oyetola himself acknowledged: enough to survive, insufficient to succeed.
Nigeria’s maritime sector deserves better. More importantly, Nigeria’s economy requires better. The question is whether those holding the purse strings will recognize this reality before the cost of neglect becomes insurmountable.
The minister has done his job. He has sounded the alarm, presented the evidence, and made the case. Now the responsibility shifts to the National Assembly and, ultimately, to the presidency.
Will they respond with the urgency this crisis demands, or will they approve another aspirational budget that remains largely unimplemented, consigning the marine and blue economy to another year of “minimal operational continuity”?
The answer to that question will reverberate far beyond the ministry’s offices. It will be felt in every port, on every waterway, in every fishing community, and ultimately, in the price Nigerians pay for goods and food.
The time for carefully examining proposals has long passed. The time for decisive action is now.
A Waterways News Special Report
Abuja, February 11, 2026
MARITIME TRADE & SHIPPING
Trade Expert Demands Emergency Customs Audit, as $600 Million Container Duty Scandal Emerges
Trade Expert Demands Emergency Customs Audit, as $600 Million Container Duty Scandal Emerges
Trade expert calls for emergency audit as Grimaldi Agency Nigeria moves to sell 2,500 containers outside customs law — with transactions demanded in U.S. dollars
By Oghenewoke Osaweren | Waterways News Investigative Desk
Nigeria has haemorrhaged over $600 million in customs duties and value-added tax over three decades as foreign shipping lines operating in the country’s ports have brazenly sold empty import containers without complying with statutory customs conversion procedures — a practice that experts say amounts to organised economic sabotage against the Nigerian state.
The explosive allegation was made Monday by Okey Ibeke, Principal Consultant at International Trade Advisory Services, while addressing the Shipping Correspondents Association of Nigeria (SCAN) in Apapa, Lagos. Ibeke called on the Nigeria Customs Service (NCS) to immediately suspend all container sales by Grimaldi Agency Nigeria and launch a full industry-wide audit of the practice spanning the last 30 years.
“Grimaldi is not an isolated case. For 30 years, Maersk, MSC, CMA CGM, Hapag-Lloyd, COSCO, ONE, Evergreen, and PIL have operated in Nigerian ports under similar conditions.” — Okey Ibeke, Principal Consultant, International Trade Advisory Services
The Grimaldi Trigger
The controversy was ignited by media reports that Grimaldi Agency Nigeria — the local arm of the Italian shipping giant — is planning to sell more than 2,500 empty containers to Nigerian members of the public at $2,000 per 40-foot unit and $1,600 per 20-foot unit. Critically, buyers have been directed to make payments in U.S. dollars through domiciliary accounts, a requirement that directly contravenes the Central Bank of Nigeria’s policy discouraging the dollarisation of domestic transactions.
But for Ibeke, the currency issue is secondary to a far graver legal violation. Those containers, he argues, entered Nigeria under ‘Temporary Import’ status — a customs classification that legally obligates them to be re-exported after use. Selling them locally without converting their status to permanent import is, in his words, unambiguously illegal.
Breaking Down the Legal Breach
Under the Nigeria Customs Service Act 2023 and its Temporary Import Guidelines, any shipping line seeking to dispose of containers locally must first file a formal application with the NCS, submit the containers for customs valuation, pay all applicable duties, VAT, and levies into government accounts, and await a release order converting the containers to ‘home use’ status. Only after this process is complete can the containers be legally sold — and only in naira, unless the CBN grants a specific foreign exchange exemption.
According to Ibeke, Grimaldi’s current arrangement skips every single one of these prerequisite steps. “With Grimaldi, Step 5 is happening without Steps 1 to 4. That is illegal,” he stated plainly.
KEY FIGURES AT A GLANCE$600M+ Total Revenue Loss Over 30 years $350–$400 Loss Per Container Duties & taxes (2026 tariff) $875K–$1M Grimaldi Deal Loss 2,500 containers 5% + 7.5% HS Code Levy Duty + VAT + ETLS + FOB
The Numbers Behind the Scandal
Ibeke’s financial calculations are damning. Applying the 2026 Customs tariff schedule for HS Code 86.09 — which covers shipping containers — he calculated a combined levy burden of approximately 17% to 18% on each unit. At the declared sale price of $2,000, the government loses between $350 and $400 per container in unpaid duties and taxes. For Grimaldi’s 2,500 units alone, the resulting revenue shortfall ranges from $875,000 to $1,000,000 — from a single company in a single transaction.
The expert then applied this framework retrospectively. Industry data, he said, indicates that hundreds of thousands of containers have been absorbed into Nigeria’s informal and formal economies over the past three decades — repurposed as roadside shops, cold storage facilities, construction materials, and residential units. Conservatively estimating 250,000 such containers at an average price of $1,500 each, and applying a 10% duty-and-tax rate, the cumulative loss to the Federal Government exceeds $375 million — or over ₦600 billion at current exchange rates. Including broader tax leakages, the figure climbs above $600 million.
“That is money that should be funding roads, schools, hospitals, and debt service. Instead, it is lining the pockets of foreign corporations who treat Nigerian law as optional.”— Okey Ibeke, Principal Consultant, International Trade Advisory Services
Structural Drivers: Why Shipping Lines Abandon Containers
Ibeke did not merely assign blame; he also laid out the structural economic logic that has enabled the practice to persist undetected — or at least unpunished — for three decades. The root cause, he argues, is Nigeria’s severe trade imbalance: imports account for approximately 75% of dry cargo traffic through Nigerian ports, while exports represent a mere 15%. The remaining 10% consists of transit and transshipment cargoes.
Meanwhile, oil and mineral exports — which form the bulk of Nigeria’s outbound trade at 70% of export value — are not containerised. The consequence is stark: vessels arrive at Lagos, Apapa, and Tin Can ports fully loaded with import cargo, but depart 97% empty. Repatriating those empty containers to origin ports costs between $2,000 and $4,000 per 20-foot unit. Selling them locally is not just more profitable — it eliminates a significant operational cost. The economic incentive to circumvent customs law is, therefore, built into the very structure of Nigeria’s trade architecture.
A Culture of Impunity: Thirty Years of Accumulated Violations
What makes Ibeke’s intervention especially significant is his charge that this is not a new or isolated problem. He named some of the world’s largest shipping conglomerates — Maersk, MSC, CMA CGM, Hapag-Lloyd, COSCO, ONE, Evergreen, and PIL — as participants in the same pattern of behaviour over the past three decades. These are not fly-by-night operators; they are globally listed corporations with compliance departments and legal teams. Yet in Nigeria, he alleges, they have systematically operated outside the customs law framework with no consequence.
The trade expert linked this culture of impunity to a broader ecosystem of port-related malpractice affecting Nigerian importers and freight forwarders, including arbitrary demurrage and detention charges denominated in foreign currencies, persistent delays in refunding container deposit funds, forced use of nominated transporters, and the withholding of shipping documents until all local charges — legitimate or not — are settled.
Legal Framework: What the Law Says
Ibeke cited multiple statutory provisions that, in his assessment, the practice clearly breaches. Section 36 of the NCS Act 2023 explicitly states that goods brought in under temporary import status must either be re-exported or formally converted to home use with all applicable duties paid. Sections 245, 248, and 249 of the same act empower Customs officers to detain, seize, and impose penalties on goods that do not comply with these conditions.
The CBN Foreign Exchange Manual and Nigerian Shippers’ Council regulations further prohibit dollar-denominated transactions in domestic commercial activities without specific authorisation. The Nigerian Ports Authority’s own temporary import guidelines, Ibeke noted, are fully aligned with the customs law position.
Demands and Recommendations
Ibeke issued a series of specific demands. First, that the NCS immediately suspend all container sales by Grimaldi Agency Nigeria and other shipping lines pending a regulatory review. Second, that the Service conduct a full audit of all containers sold by foreign shipping lines over the past decade, with a view to recovering unpaid duties. Third, that the Federal Ministry of Finance formally investigate the financial exposure and publish findings. Fourth, that the CBN separately investigate the foreign exchange implications of dollar-denominated container sales. And fifth, that the Nigerian Shippers’ Council use its enforcement powers to compel compliance.
He also called on the National Assembly to amend relevant sections of the NCS Act to explicitly criminalise the sale of temporary import containers without prior customs conversion, and to mandate mandatory disclosure by shipping lines of all container disposal activities within Nigerian territory.
Regulatory and Government Response
As of the time of this report, neither the Nigeria Customs Service nor Grimaldi Agency Nigeria had issued a public response to the allegations. The Nigerian Shippers’ Council, which has in recent quarters recovered hundreds of millions of naira from shipping companies over container deposit refund disputes, also had not commented on whether it was investigating the temporary import conversion issue specifically.
It is worth noting that the House of Representatives, in November 2025, announced plans to probe the Customs Service over alleged revenue leakages linked to improper assessment of excise duties, overdue temporary importation, and unremitted customs charges — suggesting that legislative concern over the broader problem of port-related revenue haemorrhage has been building for some time.
The Bigger Picture
Nigeria’s ports have long been a flashpoint for debates over economic sovereignty, regulatory enforcement, and the terms on which foreign corporations operate within the country. The container scandal, if Ibeke’s figures are verified, would rank among the largest sustained customs violations in the country’s history — not because of the individual transaction size, but because of its sheer duration and the breadth of corporate actors allegedly involved.
For a Federal Government that collected an estimated ₦3.8 trillion in customs revenue in 2024 — and that is engaged in an aggressive revenue mobilisation drive to close a fiscal deficit exceeding ₦13 trillion — the loss of ₦600 billion or more to what amounts to customs fraud by multinational shipping companies is a political and economic wound it can ill afford to ignore.
Waterways News (www.waterwaysnews.ng) has reached out to the Nigeria Customs Service, Grimaldi Agency Nigeria, the Nigerian Shippers’ Council, and the Federal Ministry of Finance for official comment. Responses will be published as received.
94 Days and Counting: The Strait of Hormuz Remains a Ghost Waterway
Global shipping crisis deepens as executives refuse to risk vessels despite Trump’s promises of imminent reopening
By Oghenewoke Osaweren | Waterways News Correspondent, Lagos
The world’s most consequential maritime chokepoint entered its 94th day of near-total paralysis on Monday, with shipping executives gathered in Athens warning that no meaningful resumption of traffic through the Strait of Hormuz is likely until Washington and Tehran reach a durable, enforceable peace agreement.
The stark reality on the water tells its own story. According to research firm Kpler, only seven ships passed through the strait last Friday — five entering and two exiting — while just four additional vessels transited over the weekend. Under normal conditions, approximately 100 cargo-carrying vessels move through the waterway daily.
“Traffic still remains exceptionally depleted,” Matt Smith, Director of Commodity Research at Kpler, told CNN. “Barring a handful of tankers crossing each day, the strait remains essentially closed.”
The World’s Largest Oil Disruption
The International Energy Agency has described the halting of traffic through the Strait of Hormuz as “the largest oil supply disruption in the history” of the global market — bigger even than the oil shocks of the 1970s.
Since the start of the US-Israel war on Iran nine weeks ago, the strait — through which 20 percent of the world’s oil and liquefied natural gas is shipped during peacetime — has become the chokepoint of the global economy, stoking fears of a worldwide recession.
About 2,000 ships currently remain stranded in the Gulf, waiting to be allowed through. Over 22,500 mariners are trapped on more than 1,550 commercial vessels in and around the strait, according to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Dan Caine.
Athens Summit: Confidence, Not Convoys, Is the Key
The world’s most powerful shipping executives are convening this week in Athens for the annual Posidonia International Shipping Exhibition. The Strait of Hormuz has dominated every conversation.
President Donald Trump has insisted the strait’s reopening is imminent, with administration officials pointing to the trickle of vessels getting through as evidence of progress. But industry leaders are not persuaded.
Gene Seroka, Executive Director of the Port of Los Angeles — who spent half a decade working for American President Lines in the Middle East — told CNN that sporadic transits are not enough.
“The larger issue is whether carriers, insurers and vessel operators have enough confidence in the long-term security environment to resume regular service patterns,” Seroka said. It will take more than a “limited number of successful transits” to restore that confidence, he added.
Project Freedom’ Falls Short
A US military initiative last month — dubbed “Project Freedom” — sought to escort commercial vessels out of the strait under naval protection. War-risk insurance for tankers now prices at 8.0 times the pre-crisis level, with six P&I clubs withdrawing cover. The initiative proved short-lived.
Despite subsequent reports of renewed naval escorts, a spokesperson for US Central Command contradicted those claims outright.
“Though US forces are not escorting, we continue to communicate and coordinate with commercial ships seeking to freely and safely transit the Strait of Hormuz,” said Captain Tim Hawkins, spokesman for the command.
An oil industry source was blunt in their assessment: “Our general sense is that the threat to ships crossing the Strait is still significant, and we will not see a full resumption of traffic through the strait until there is a stronger guarantee of safe passage.”
Fresh Attack on Monday
Further underscoring the danger, a cargo vessel travelling in the northern Persian Gulf was struck by an unknown projectile on Monday, according to a British military-run maritime security organisation. The US has also said it will take six months to clear mines it believes Iran has laid across the strait. There have now been 39 vessel strikes in the region and 11 deaths recorded since the conflict began, according to the International Maritime Organization (IMO).
Container Giants Trapped; Food Supplies at Risk
The crisis has moved well beyond oil. Container ships that ordinarily deliver food, medicine, and consumer goods to Gulf states are also paralysed. Maersk, one of the world’s largest container shipping firms, has not had a ship depart since mid-May — with six of its vessels still stranded in the Gulf.
Jebel Ali Port in Dubai, the largest container port in the Middle East and a critical transshipment hub for the entire region, is experiencing severe congestion from vessels that have diverted following the closure.
Shipping industry sources are emphatic that when the strait does eventually reopen, no tolls or discriminatory transit fees must be imposed.
Arsenio Dominguez, Secretary General of the IMO, used his address to the Athens conference on Monday to hammer the point home: “As shipping comes under increasing pressure from geopolitical events, we must do all we can to work together to always put the safety of seafarers first. I call on the industry to stand with IMO in defending the principle of freedom of navigation, including the rejection of tolls and discriminatory transit measures.”
Shipping Rates Soar; Recovery Will Take Time
For tanker operators operating outside the Gulf, the crisis has been remarkably profitable. Heidmar, a Greek tanker firm, reported a more than 200% surge in revenue in the first quarter of 2026 compared to the same period last year — a direct consequence of what its CEO, Pankaj Khanna, described as “historically elevated” shipping rates.
Chevron CEO Mike Wirth acknowledged the long road to normalisation. “You need new ships to come back in, and ship owners have to be comfortable sending crews back after being trapped for months,” Wirth told Bloomberg on Friday. “Clearing out inventories to allow oil fields to restart and repair damage won’t happen overnight.”
The waterway’s future status will depend heavily on both the regional security situation and the outcome of ongoing diplomatic efforts between the United States and Iran.
For Nigeria and other African nations that depend on stable oil pricing and global freight networks, the message from Athens is sobering: the world’s most critical maritime corridor remains, for all practical purposes, closed — and no one is prepared to say when it will truly reopen.
EDITOR’S NOTE: The Strait of Hormuz crisis began on March 2, 2026, following joint US-Israeli strikes on Tehran that killed Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps subsequently declared the strait closed. Waterways.ng will continue to track developments as they affect Nigerian maritime trade and the global energy market.
Blue Economy
AfCFTA Trade Gap Widens: Nigeria Issues Just 37 Certificates of Origin as South Africa Hits 4,000
AfCFTA Trade Gap Widens: Nigeria Issues Just 37 Certificates of Origin as South Africa Hits 4,000
Shipping and export communities warned as Nigeria lags far behind peers in continental trade integration
By Ighoyota Onaibre | Waterways News Correspondent
Nigeria’s participation in intra-African trade under the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) is in serious jeopardy, with fresh data revealing that Africa’s largest economy has issued a mere 37 Certificates of Origin under the framework — compared to over 4,000 by South Africa alone.
The figures, confirmed by the Nigeria Customs Service and corroborated by trade monitoring sources, expose a yawning implementation gap that maritime operators, port-sector stakeholders, and exporters say cannot be explained away by Nigeria’s complex trade environment alone.
What the Numbers Say
Approximately 8,500 Certificates of Origin have been issued continent-wide under AfCFTA to date. South Africa accounts for nearly half of that figure, with Egypt, Kenya, and Ghana also recording significantly higher utilisation rates. Nigeria — the continent’s biggest economy by GDP and its most populous nation — accounts for less than half of one per cent of the total.
The Certificate of Origin is not a bureaucratic formality. It is the document that certifies the local content of exported goods and qualifies those goods for preferential tariff treatment within the AfCFTA single market, a continental trading bloc currently valued at over $3 trillion. Without it, Nigerian exporters cannot access the duty advantages the agreement was designed to deliver.
A Port and Shipping Sector Problem
For Nigeria’s maritime community, the implications are direct. Vessels departing Nigerian ports with cargo bound for other African markets — whether dry goods, processed commodities, or refined petroleum products including those increasingly evacuated from the Dangote Refinery — depend on proper documentation to benefit from AfCFTA’s tariff preferences at destination ports.
Where that documentation is absent or delayed, cargo can face higher import duties on arrival in partner states, undermining the competitiveness of Nigerian-origin exports and the commercial case for expanding coastal and short-sea shipping on the continent.
The disparity also has implications for Nigeria’s ambitions under the cabotage regime. Nigerian shipowners seeking to build business around intra-African cargo flows need a robust export pipeline — one that can only be sustained if Nigerian goods are competitive in regional markets. AfCFTA is supposed to be the engine of that competitiveness. The data suggests the engine has barely turned over.
Systemic Failures Identified
Industry stakeholders who spoke on the matter described the situation as an implementation failure rather than a structural flaw in the AfCFTA framework itself. They identified the core problems as bureaucratic bottlenecks, limited automation of certification processes, poor sensitisation of exporters, and weak inter-agency coordination among the bodies responsible for AfCFTA execution in Nigeria — principally the Federal Ministry of Industry, Trade and Investment, the Nigeria Customs Service, and the AfCFTA coordinating office.
While countries like South Africa have rolled out digital platforms that allow exporters to obtain Certificates of Origin with relative speed and transparency, Nigeria’s process reportedly remains burdened by manual procedures, institutional delays, and a lack of awareness among the exporter community about how to use the framework at all.
High production costs, port congestion at Apapa and Tin Can Island, inadequate logistics infrastructure, and overlapping regulatory mandates further compound the problem — raising the cost of export compliance to a point where many small and medium-scale producers simply do not attempt it.
Nigeria Watch: The Competitive Risk
The AfCFTA data lands at a particularly sensitive moment for Nigerian maritime trade. With the Strait of Hormuz under pressure and global shipping routes in flux, the case for deepening Nigeria’s regional trade relationships within Africa has never been stronger. Yet the Certificate of Origin figures suggest that while other African economies are moving decisively to consolidate their positions in the continental market, Nigeria’s institutional apparatus is failing to keep pace.
South Africa’s 4,000-plus certificates do not represent a trade miracle — they represent a government that took AfCFTA implementation seriously, invested in digital certification infrastructure, and ran consistent outreach to its exporter community. Nigeria has the productive capacity to match and exceed that performance. What it demonstrably lacks, at this point, is the institutional will and execution coherence to unlock it.
Stakeholders are calling on the Federal Government to immediately overhaul the certification process through full digitalisation, enhanced inter-agency coordination, and a targeted sensitisation campaign reaching exporters through ports, industry associations, and chambers of commerce. Time, they warn, is not on Nigeria’s side. The longer the gap persists, the deeper the competitive ground lost to better-organised economies in the continent’s emerging single market.
Oil and Gas3 months agoTantita’s Pipeline Deal: $144m Contract, Rising Output, and the Questions that Deserve Answers
- MARITIME TRADE & SHIPPING3 months ago
World’s Largest Container Ship Sets New Maritime Record with 22,233 TEUs on Single Voyage
- Blue Economy4 months ago
Nigeria’s Coast Guard Bill: A Solution in Search of a Problem?
