A vessel may load crude in Port Harcourt, discharge containers in Mumbai, or bunker in Mombasa. Yet when a collision, oil spill, or injury claim arises, the decision on liability is often made in London. This is the quiet asymmetry of global shipping. Emerging markets now account for much of the world's maritime activity, yet the financial and legal mechanisms that govern maritime risk remain concentrated in developed economies.
Nigeria embodies this contradiction. It is West Africa's maritime giant, moving the majority of regional cargo and serving as the logistical hub for the continent's largest oil producer. But when liabilities emerge in its waters, premiums, reserves, and claims administration are exported abroad. The result is an industry where local actors shoulder operational risk but remain spectators in the financial systems that define, price, and settle that risk.
The future of Protection and Indemnity (P&I) insurance in emerging markets hinges on correcting this imbalance. The question is whether countries like Nigeria can evolve from passive participants into regional hubs of maritime insurance, capturing both the economic and institutional dividends of underwriting their own risks.
Concentration Without Representation
The International Group of P&I Clubs, a consortium of just 13 European-headquartered clubs, provides marine liability cover for about 90% of the world's ocean-going tonnage. This dominance reflects history: London has long been the seat of maritime arbitration and underwriting, and its institutions remain the global reference point.
But for emerging markets, this concentration carries consequences. Premiums generated in Lagos or Luanda flow to Europe. Claims from incidents in the Gulf of Guinea are adjudicated under foreign legal regimes. Local courts, insurers, and professionals remain peripheral. This is not simply an economic leakage; it is an institutional exclusion. Those most exposed to maritime risk have the least influence over how that risk is defined, priced, and resolved.
Insurance is never neutral. Where it is located determines who sets the rules. For Nigeria and other emerging maritime economies, reliance on foreign clubs means risk is filtered through external assumptions. Piracy, oil theft, and infrastructural challenges. These are often undervalued or misunderstood in underwriting models developed in Europe.
The consequence is sovereignty loss. Nigeria may secure its waters and regulate its ports, but it cannot shape the financial norms that govern its maritime liabilities. As long as this imbalance persists, emerging markets will continue to be price-takers rather than price-setters in global shipping.
Global Precedents: Lessons from Singapore
Correcting this imbalance requires deliberate policy choices. The case of Singapore is instructive. Despite its small size and absence of natural resources, Singapore has built itself into both a maritime and marine insurance hub. Today, it hosts close to 200 international shipping groups and one of Asia's most extensive P&I correspondent networks. Crucially, it has also become a global centre for maritime arbitration, widely recognised as the leading rival to London.
Singapore's achievement is not an accident. It invested heavily in maritime law and financial expertise, built regulatory institutions capable of aligning port operations with insurance markets, and positioned itself as a trusted dispute resolution forum. The lesson is clear: shipping activity alone is not enough. Without aligning the operational and financial sides of maritime risk, no country can claim hub status.
For Nigeria, the parallel is striking. It has the cargo throughput, port infrastructure, and oil logistics volume. What it lacks is the intentional alignment that would allow it to retain premiums, process claims locally, and shape liability standards in ways that reflect its realities.
Nigeria already has elements of a foundation. The Nigerian Oil and Gas Industry Content Development Act (2010) requires local placement of insurable risks in O&G operations wherever capacity exists, with NAICOM approval required before any offshore placement. On paper, this is clear. In practice, high-value categories such as P&I are still almost entirely placed abroad. Brokers may intermediate, but brokerage is not localisation. True localisation means retaining reserves, building actuarial depth, and developing claims expertise within Nigeria.
The Nigerian Insurance Industry Reform Act (NIIRA 2025) further modernised the sector by introducing risk-based capital standards, stronger licensing, and enhanced oversight. Yet its corporate form requirements mandate that insurers operate as limited liability companies. This effectively excludes mutuals, the very structure upon which P&I clubs are based. The result is a regulatory paradox: Nigeria has a stronger insurance framework but no legal pathway to establish a domestic P&I club. Bridging this gap will require legislative change that explicitly recognises mutual marine insurers.
From Maritime Traffic to Risk Leadership
Nigeria already carries the cargo, manages the ports, and supports the vessels that power regional trade. What it does not yet control is the financial core of that system. Without a domestic P&I club, the country remains dependent on external institutions that define its risks without its input.
Creating a Nigerian P&I facility would change this. It would keep premiums in local banks, empower Nigerian underwriters and lawyers, and accelerate claims resolution under domestic legal frameworks. It would also give Nigeria a seat at the global insurance table, where definitions of liability and pricing structures are set.
This is not a call to disengage from international frameworks but to engage them on more equitable terms. Nigeria has the shipping volume; what it now requires is legislative reform, institutional alignment, and political will to translate that volume into financial leadership. If achieved, it would move from being a passive participant in global maritime insurance to a regional architect of risk, anchoring not only Nigerian trade but the broader currents of West African commerce.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
