Shutting down ports over shipping charges disputes may create collateral damage – SEREC

The Sea Empowerment Research Centre (SEREC) has stated that shutting down and obstruction of business activities in the port over increases in shipping charges would create avoidable collateral damage to cargo interests, importers, and indigenous businesses.

It would be recalled that Customs agents and freight forwarders recently threatened to shutdown the port over an increase in shipping charges by shipping lines operating in Nigeria.

SEREC made this position known in a paper prepared by its Head of Research, Fwdr Eugene Nweke Rff, highlighting the significant impacts the increase and shutting down of the port would have on the port industry and the national economy.

The paper reads thus: The Nigerian maritime and port industry remains a critical driver of national trade, revenue generation, and economic stability. As such, actions, reactions, and regulatory decisions within this ecosystem must be guided by professionalism, legality, economic intelligence, and institutional responsibility.

Recent industrial actions in response to escalating shipping line charges have once again drawn national attention to persistent structural imbalances within the port cost regime. While stakeholder concerns regarding arbitrary and disproportionate tariff increases are legitimate and well-founded, the methods adopted in prosecuting such grievances must align with modern industrial relations standards and international best practices.

LEGITIMACY OF INDUSTRY CONCERNS
There is no dispute that shipping and ancillary port charges have increased sharply over the years, far outpacing improvements in service quality and efficiency.

Many traditional cost justifications advanced by service providers—foreign exchange volatility, energy costs, and operational risks—have either stabilised or moderated.

The cumulative effect of unchecked charges is inflationary, with direct consequences for businesses, consumers, and national economic competitiveness.

These realities underscore the urgent need for reform, transparency, and regulatory intervention within the shipping and port services sector.

THE CASE AGAINST STREET-STYLE SHUTDOWNS
Notwithstanding the legitimacy of the grievances, street-style shutdowns, physical obstruction of business premises, and selective operational disruptions are inconsistent with the image, aspirations, and strategic objectives of a modern maritime industry.
Such approaches:
Expose practitioners and associations to legal, civil, and reputational risks.

Undermine years of effort to reposition freight forwarding as a regulated, professional, and knowledge-driven vocation.

Create avoidable collateral damage to cargo interests, importers, and indigenous businesses.

Distract attention from the substantive policy failures and shift focus to tactics rather than issues.

Modern industrial advocacy must rely on structured engagement, evidence-based pressure, and institutional mechanisms, not physical confrontation or ad-hoc enforcement.

THE IMPERATIVE FOR PROFESSIONAL INDUSTRIAL ADVOCACY
A professional maritime industry must embrace:
Data-driven engagement, including cost benchmarking, trend analysis, and regional comparisons.

Collective but coordinated actions, anchored on joint communiqués, unified demands, and clear negotiation frameworks.

Graduated escalation mechanisms, including formal petitions, regulatory complaints, arbitration requests, and lawful service withdrawal where necessary.

Strategic media engagement that informs, educates, and builds public understanding rather than sensationalism.

Industrial action should be a tool of last resort, not a first response.

REGULATORY FAILURE AS THE CORE PROBLEM
At the heart of recurring disputes over shipping charges lies a systemic regulatory deficit.

Economic Regulation:
The absence of firm, transparent, and enforceable oversight over shipping line tariffs and ancillary charges has allowed:

Arbitrary pricing.

Lack of cost justification.

Abuse of dominant market positions.

The industry economic regulator must:
Assert its statutory mandate without fear or favour.

Establish tariff review and approval frameworks.

Enforce cost transparency and stakeholder consultation.

Professional Regulation:
Equally concerning is the failure of the professional regulatory architecture to consistently enforce standards, ethics, and orderly conduct.
A credible professional regulator must:
* Promote lawful and civil engagement.
* Sanction conduct that undermines industry credibility.
* Lead advocacy through institutional channels rather than street enforcement.

THE NEED FOR REGULATORS TO LIVE ABOVE BOARD
Both economic and professional regulators must rise above institutional lethargy, regulatory capture, and selective enforcement.
To “live above board” means:
Acting transparently and independently.

Resisting undue influence from dominant commercial interests.

Engaging stakeholders proactively rather than reactively.

Publishing decisions, frameworks, and compliance benchmarks.

When regulators fail to act, pressure inevitably shifts to the streets—an outcome that serves no one.

On the way forward, SEREC recommends immediate suspension of street-style shutdowns and physical enforcement actions.

Establishment of an Industry Shipping Charges Review Forum involving regulators and stakeholders.

Development of a national port cost benchmarking framework.

Mandatory cost-justification disclosures by shipping lines for tariff adjustments.

Strengthening of professional regulatory enforcement to promote orderly advocacy.

Institutionalisation of dispute resolution and arbitration mechanisms.