The Nigerian Maritime Administration and Safety Agency (NIMASA) and stakeholders in the maritime sector on Monday opposed a proposed amendment of NIMASA Act to establish a Maritime Security Fund {MSF}.

Their opposition was raised at a public hearing organized by the House of Representatives Committee on Maritime Safety Education and Administration in Abuja.

Leading the opposition, Mr Gambo Ahmed, Executive Director, Maritime Labour and Cabotage Services, NIMASA, said the amendment of two sections of the Act would have implications on international regulation on maritime operations.

Gambo who noted that amending the NIMASA Act to fund the maritime operations amendment Bill is not necessary as section 3 of the Bill will create a duplication of the collective work in collaboration with international bodies, also faulted the attempt as it seeks to insert a new section, 17 (2), proposing that one per cent of the maritime fund be subjected to the Maritime Security Fund under section 7 of the Maritime Operations Coordinating Board Act.

The amendment also proposes insertion of new paragraphs – (r) and (s) – in section 22.

Speaking at the event, the President, African Ship owners Association and a former Director General of NIMASA, Mr. Temisan Omatseye pointed out that the effort would be against all international conventions of the International Maritime Organization (IMO), entered into by the Federal Republic of Nigeria and which has to be implemented.

While citing Section 22 (P) of the NIMASA Act, which provides opportunity for the Agency to provide maritime security, he noted that the IMO frowns at issues of military engagement in commercial activities.

Speaking in the same vein, the Secretary-General, Abuja MoU on Port State Control for West and Central Africa, Mrs Nfon Usoro stressed the need for a synergy between the executive and the armed forces on maritime governance in Nigeria.

She maintained that it was pre-mature to talk about funding, arguing that NIMASA was not the right body to fund the security fund as it was not a beneficiary of the Act, positing that the principle of funding agencies is very clear if it is related to services.

“In the telecommunication industry for instance, the regulated industry pays for the operation of the regulator, and the principle in other areas is that the beneficiaries pay.
“Even, assuming there was nothing intrinsically wrong with the Bill, for the fact that NIMASA is not the beneficiary, the argument falls flat in terms of taking the one per cent from NIMASA.’’

She canvassed the need to clearly define the functions of various agencies in the maritime sector.

“There should be a superintending body that will have to agree on the functions and after agreeing on the functions, then we will be able to determine the cost of operation.

“If you do not determine the functions, it is premature to talk about funding because you don’t know the cost and you don’t know if the one per cent will be sufficient or insufficient,’’ she said.

In his own contribution, the Chairman, Ports Consultative Council, Otunba Kunle Folarin noted that Nigeria is a critical stakeholder in the international maritime space, hence the need to exercise caution in amending any bill that may jeopardize the future of Nigeria in the global maritime sector.

“NIMASA’s efforts on regional co-operation should be consolidated, rather than trying to usurp some of the functions of the Agency as it will affect the day to day operations of NIMASA in carrying out its mandates”.

He however was quick to caution that the House of Representatives Committee on Maritime Safety, Education and Administration should ensure that NIMASA and Nigerian Navy should not work at cross-purposes as they are both critical to the safety and security of the nation’s territorial waterways.

However, Mr Jide Olumuwa, representative of the Nigeria Association of Master Mariners, said that the existing MoU between NIMASA and Nigerian Navy should be enlarged.

“We observe cross function between NIMASA and Navy with a possible conflict of interest.
“We suggest collaboration and harmony on the issue of marine funding which we believe the house is in a position to mediate,’’ he said.

Earlier, the sponsor of the Amendment Bill, Rep. Henry Nwawuba, said that the need to have a secured maritime environment prompted him to sponsor the bill.

“The dominant effect of a fully secured maritime environment in Nigeria has direct relations with job creation.
“We see that insecurity is costing Nigeria much leakage to what we can potentially achieve.

“If you have a vessel that comes into Nigerian waters and queue up for 10 days before it has an opportunity to discharge, it will leave Nigerian waters to neighbouring countries to do its discharges.’’

Meanwhile, the representative of the Association of Marine Engineers and Surveyors (AMES), Engr. Emmanuel Ilori in strong terms also condemned the moves by the Nigerian Navy to usurp the roles of NIMASA by way of seeking amendment to the bill.

According to him, he said that the Cabotage fund should not be raided to fund another Agency of government that already has a budget from the Federal Government. He called on the Navy to seek for more budgetary funding from the right source and not from NIMASA as both Agencies’ have their jurisdiction as regarding budget and expenditure.

“NIMASA is already investing in infrastructure that will lead to a total coverage of the maritime sector, hence the need to encourage them for the good of the maritime sector. At this critical time, it is premature to seek any form of amendment and we need to support NIMASA on this; more so we are going to IMO again and Nigeria must not be an object of ridicule again” Engr. Ilori said.

Other Stakeholders who also condemned the proposed bill included, the President of the Stevedoring Association of Nigeria, Mr. Bolaji Sunmola; representative of the Nigerian Maritime Law Association (NMLA) Mrs. Oritsema Tosa; Lagos coordinator of the Nigerian Ship Owners Association (NISA), Captain Taiwo Akinpelumi; Director General, NISA, Engr. Oliver Ogbuagu; amongst others, unanimously calling for caution, while noting that NIMASA needs more strength in order to be able to carry out its function effectively.

A stakeholder who pleaded for anonymity described the sponsoring of the bill as emanating out of insincerity, noting that they merely wanted to smuggle in, through the backdoor, a conduit pipe, by duplicating same function and surrendering it to two different organizations.