The new Ports Economic Regulatory Agency could bring discipline, transparency and competition to Nigeria’s port economy. But unless its powers are carefully separated from those of the Nigerian Ports Authority (NPA), the legislation could open a new front in the country’s long-running problem of overlapping maritime mandates.
Okey IBEKE, a maritime expert, x-rays the Act and suggests ways to prevent conflicts between NPA and NPERA.
The presidential assent to the Nigerian Ports Economic Regulatory Agency (NPERA) Act, 2026, marks an important milestone in Nigeria’s long search for a permanent economic regulator for its seaports.
For years, the Nigerian Shippers’ Council (NSC) operated as the country’s economic regulator under an interim arrangement. The new law is expected to give that function a stronger statutory foundation, particularly in the areas of tariffs, competition, service standards and commercial disputes.
But beneath the promise of greater transparency and competition lies a critical question: where does NPERA’s economic regulatory jurisdiction end and the statutory responsibility of the Nigerian Ports Authority (NPA) begin?
The question is important because NPA is not simply another agency operating within the port. Its enabling law gives it extensive responsibilities for the provision, maintenance, improvement and regulation of the use of Nigerian ports, as well as the efficient management of port operations.
The Authority’s role, however, changed significantly following the Federal Government’s port reform programme and the adoption of the landlord model. Private terminal operators assumed much of the cargo-handling and terminal-operating functions, while NPA retained responsibility for the port estate, infrastructure and its relationship with concessionaires.
It is against this background that the NPERA Act must now be implemented.
The case for an economic regulator
There is little disagreement over the need for stronger economic regulation of Nigeria’s ports. The concession programme introduced private investment and competition, but it also created new regulatory challenges. Terminal operators, shipping companies and other service providers occupy strategic positions within the port economy, while many port users have limited alternatives when dealing with particular providers.
An effective economic regulator should therefore be able to scrutinise tariffs and charges, discourage anti-competitive practices, establish service standards, protect port users and provide mechanisms for resolving commercial disputes. NPERA now has the opportunity to give these functions a clearer statutory foundation.
The challenge, however, is ensuring that economic regulation does not become confused with port administration.
The concession question
One of the most sensitive areas of potential conflict is the administration of port concessions. Under the landlord model, NPA remains responsible for the port estate and its relationship with private concessionaires. It is therefore necessary to distinguish between regulating a concession and granting or administering one.
NPERA should be able to examine whether concessionaires comply with approved economic rules, meet service standards, treat users fairly and avoid abusing market power. That is different from determining who receives a concession, negotiating its fundamental terms or administering NPA’s landlord interests.
Earlier versions of the NPERA Bill attracted concerns from NPA over provisions relating to concession agreements and concession fees. The underlying issue was the possibility that the proposed regulator could assume functions that overlap with NPA’s statutory responsibilities and the wider concession framework involving the Infrastructure Concession Regulatory Commission.
That concern remains relevant. 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 users.
Licensing and charges
Licensing is another area where the boundaries need to be clear. The port environment contains several categories of licences and approvals, some relating to port facilities and economic services and others to shipping, safety, security, customs and professional activities.
The important question is therefore what type of licensing falls within NPERA’s mandate.
There is a difference between authorising an entity to operate a port facility and regulating the economic conditions under which an already authorised operator provides services.
The same distinction applies to charges.
NPA should retain its statutory powers over legitimate port dues and revenues arising from its functions as port authority and landlord. But commercial charges imposed by terminal operators, shipping companies and other service providers should be subject to appropriate economic scrutiny.
A shipping line should not be able to impose unreasonable charges simply because its market position gives it the power to do so. Similarly, terminal operators should be required to operate within transparent and predictable economic rules.
This is where NPERA can make a meaningful difference without taking over the functions of NPA.
Regulation should not become port management
NPERA’s responsibility for service standards must also be carefully separated from operational control.
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.
NPA must retain sufficient authority to coordinate the port environment, maintain infrastructure, manage port access and ensure efficient port operations.
The distinction is particularly important because Nigeria already has several maritime institutions with interconnected mandates.
NIMASA handles maritime administration and safety. The Nigeria Customs Service is responsible for customs control and revenue. The Shippers’ Council has historically performed economic regulatory functions, while other agencies deal with immigration, health, security and trade.
NPERA should therefore not become a super-regulator simply because almost every maritime activity has an economic consequence.
Navigation affects trade. Security affects commerce. Customs clearance affects costs. Infrastructure affects investment. But economic impact does not automatically confer jurisdiction.
The need for a regulatory map
The implementation of the NPERA Act should therefore begin with a clear delineation of responsibilities among the relevant agencies.
The Federal Ministry of Marine and Blue Economy, NPERA, NPA, NIMASA, Nigeria Customs Service, ICRC and other stakeholders should establish a framework that clearly answers:
• Who grants and administers port concessions?
• Who regulates concession performance?
• Who approves or reviews tariffs?
• Who collects statutory port dues?
• Who regulates commercial charges?
• Who licenses port facilities and service providers?
• Who controls port operations?
• Who handles technical and safety regulation?
• Who resolves disputes where agencies claim overlapping jurisdiction?
These questions should be settled before institutional disputes emerge.
Regulatory certainty is essential to investors, terminal operators, shipping companies and port users. No port economy can function efficiently where different government institutions can issue conflicting directives or claim authority over the same activity.
A referee, not another landlord
The success of the NPERA Act should ultimately be measured by its impact on port users.
If the new agency 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.
But if implementation produces recurring disputes with NPA over concessions, licences, infrastructure and port administration, the reform could create another layer of institutional uncertainty. The better approach is a clear division of responsibility.
NPA should remain the port authority and landlord, responsible for the port estate, infrastructure and functions assigned to it by law. NPERA should focus on the economic environment in which terminal operators, shipping companies and other service providers conduct business.
One manages the port environment; the other regulates the economic rules under which commercial activities take place.
That distinction does not weaken NPA. Rather, it gives the Authority greater clarity over its core responsibilities while allowing NPERA to concentrate on its own mandate.
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.
Okey IBEKE is a Lagos-based maritime expert.
