Nigeria Ports Economic Regulatory Agency Act, 2026: Nigerian Shippers’ Council’s Long Journey To Economic Regulation Of Nigeria’s Ports

The enactment of the Nigeria Ports Economic Regulatory Agency Act, 2026, by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu marks the culmination of a journey that began almost five decades ago, and especially of a regulatory campaign that gained decisive momentum in 2014. The transformation of the Nigerian Shippers’ Council from an institution established to protect Nigerian shippers into the Nigeria Ports Economic Regulatory Agency (NPERA) is the product of port reform, regulatory advocacy, executive action, litigation and legislative reform. Central to the turning point in that history was the intervention of Dr Olisa Agbakoba, SAN, whose sustained advocacy for a dedicated economic regulator led President Goodluck Jonathan to approve the appointment of the Nigerian Shippers’ Council as Nigeria’s economic regulator for ports.

The story begins in 1978, when the Nigerian Shippers’ Council was established under Decree No. 13 of 1978, following the recommendations of UNCTAD. Its original purpose was to provide Nigerian importers and exporters with a collective voice and protection against excessive freight, shipping and related charges imposed by powerful international shipping interests. It was essentially a shipper-protection institution, not a comprehensive economic regulator.

That position changed fundamentally following the concessioning of Nigerian ports, particularly from 2006. Private terminal operators assumed responsibility for terminal operations and cargo handling, while the Nigerian Ports Authority increasingly operated as a landlord port authority. The concession programme brought private investment into the ports but also created a regulatory vacuum. There was no clearly established institution with comprehensive responsibility for regulating the economic relationships among terminal operators, shipping companies, and port users, particularly regarding tariffs, rates, and charges.

It was against this background that Dr Olisa Agbakoba, SAN, became a leading advocate for economic regulation of the ports. He consistently argued that Nigeria could not achieve competitive ports while private operators were able to impose charges without an effective economic regulator. His position was that the absence of such regulation was contributing to excessive port costs, cargo diversion to neighbouring countries and the loss of significant economic opportunities to Nigeria.

Dr Agbakoba’s advocacy ultimately produced a decisive government response. In February 2014, President Goodluck Jonathan approved the appointment of the Nigerian Shippers’ Council as the Economic Regulator of Nigerian ports. While the formal act was the President’s, it is important to acknowledge that this executive intervention followed and was substantially driven by Agbakoba’s sustained advocacy for the Council to be given an economic-regulatory mandate. Contemporary reports confirm that the Federal Government approved the Council’s appointment in February 2014, while Agbakoba publicly maintained that Nigeria required an economic regulator for the shipping sector.

The significance of that intervention cannot be overstated. For the first time, the Shippers’ Council moved beyond its traditional role of protecting shippers and assumed responsibility for regulating the economic environment of the ports, including tariffs, rates and charges. The Council itself records that it was appointed Port Economic Regulator in February 2014 specifically to address the negative economic consequences of port concessioning and establish an effective regulatory regime.

The new role, however, immediately generated legal resistance from terminal operators and shipping companies. When the Council sought to control excessive or unauthorised charges, the operators challenged its authority. This produced some of the most important maritime litigation in Nigeria, including the Apapa Bulk Terminal Limited litigation and the subsequent Alraine Shipping Agencies proceedings.

In those cases, the Council was represented by Olisa Agbakoba Legal (OAL). The litigation concerned, among other things, progressive storage charges and Shipping Line Agency Charges. The Council defended its regulatory intervention and counterclaimed against charges imposed on shippers. The Federal High Court upheld important aspects of the Council’s position, thereby providing judicial support for the principle that port users require protection from arbitrary economic charges. The litigation placed before the courts the fundamental question whether private terminal operators and shipping companies could exercise economic power over port users without effective public regulation.

The subsequent appellate proceedings also exposed an important weakness: executive designation alone could not permanently resolve the statutory question of economic regulation. The Court of Appeal’s treatment of the legal basis for the Council’s appointment demonstrated the uncertainty inherent in relying on executive action where the enabling legislation had originally contemplated a different institutional role.

That uncertainty strengthened the case for legislation. The experience from 2014 onwards demonstrated that Nigeria needed a dedicated statutory institution whose authority to regulate tariffs, charges, competition, service standards and other economic activities at the ports could not easily be challenged on the ground that its powers exceeded its original statutory mandate.

The Nigerian Shippers’ Council consequently evolved over the following years into the country’s de facto port economic regulator. Successive administrations and the leadership of the Council developed its regulatory functions, while the industry increasingly recognised that effective economic regulation was necessary to make Nigerian ports competitive and reduce the cost of doing business.

The Nigeria Ports Economic Regulatory Agency Act, 2026 (NPERA Act) represents a fundamental restructuring of Nigeria’s port governance by giving statutory status to an independent economic regulator for the ports. It converts the Nigerian Shippers’ Council’s former interim regulatory role into a substantive statutory mandate. NPERA’s core obligations are economic rather than operational. It is responsible for regulating port tariffs, rates and charges; licensing and regulating port service providers; promoting fair competition; establishing service standards; protecting port users; facilitating trade; monitoring the quality and cost of port services and resolving commercial disputes within its regulatory jurisdiction. The Act therefore seeks to separate the economic regulation of the port market from the physical operation and management of port infrastructure. 

The Nigerian Ports Authority (NPA), however, retains substantial statutory responsibilities under the Nigerian Ports Authority Act. Its obligations include providing and operating port facilities, maintaining and improving ports, regulating the use of ports, ensuring efficient port operations, providing navigational and pilotage services and developing port infrastructure. The NPA Act also gives the Authority powers relating to harbour dues, ship dues and rates for facilities and services provided by the Authority. Importantly, the NPA therefore remains the port infrastructure provider, Landlord and operational authority, whereas NPERA is intended to be the economic regulator of the port market. This distinction has also been expressly emphasised by the new NPERA leadership. 

There may be some potential area of statutory overlap, particularly concerning rates, charges and regulation of port services. The NPA Act gives NPA authority to levy harbour and other dues and rates for services and facilities it provides, while the NPERA Act gives NPERA authority to regulate tariffs, rates and charges imposed by port service providers. The potential conflict may therefore not necessarily be that both agencies have identical functions, but that NPA may be both a service provider/landlord with revenue interests and an authority exercising regulatory powers over port use, while NPERA is now the independent economic regulator responsible for preventing excessive or discriminatory charges and ensuring competition. 

The proper legal architecture, therefore, should be that NPERA regulates the economic rules of the game, while NPA operates and manages the physical port environment within those rules. NPA should retain responsibility for infrastructure, Landlord functions, port access, marine operations and concession administration, but its tariffs and commercial charges should be subject to the applicable economic regulatory framework where the NPERA Act so provides. The principal implementation challenge will be to ensure that NPERA does not encroach upon NPA’s operational and infrastructure mandate, while NPA does not use its statutory powers over port use, concessions or its own charges to circumvent NPERA’s economic regulatory authority. The Act is therefore a significant reform, but clear subsidiary regulations, inter-agency protocols and a precise allocation of tariff, licensing, concession and enforcement responsibilities will be essential to prevent jurisdictional disputes and regulatory duplication.