Nigerian Maritime Organization

Nigerian Maritime Organization The Maritime industry in Nigeria is yet to occupy it's rightful position. In the journey, it requires a strong industry voice. This is the mission.

Oyetola Moves Inland Dry Ports to NPA: A Welcome Shift.Finally, the pieces of Nigeria’s port governance architecture ar...
04/09/2026

Oyetola Moves Inland Dry Ports to NPA: A Welcome Shift.

Finally, the pieces of Nigeria’s port governance architecture are beginning to fall into place

There are government decisions in the maritime sector that deserve more than a passing news headline. The Federal Government’s decision to transfer the Inland Dry Port (IDP) functions of the Nigerian Shippers’ Council to the Nigerian Ports Authority (NPA) is one of them.

Here on this platform as Industry stakeholders, we welcome this development.

Not because the Nigerian Shippers’ Council has not played an important role in the development of Nigeria’s inland dry-port concept—it certainly has. Indeed, the Council describes the IDP programme as an initiative it promoted and facilitated under a public-private partnership framework.

Rather, we welcome the transfer because it addresses a much bigger problem: who should regulate the port system, who should develop its infrastructure, and who should operate it?

For too long, these responsibilities have existed in an overlapping institutional environment.

The new direction provides an opportunity to begin correcting that.

The regulator should not be the developer

The Minister of Marine and Blue Economy, Adegboyega Oyetola, has linked the IDP transfer directly to the ongoing transition of the Nigerian Shippers’ Council into the newly established Nigeria Ports Economic Regulatory Agency (NPERA).

Under the emerging framework, NPERA is expected to concentrate on economic regulation—including tariffs and charges, competition, licensing, service standards, commercial dispute resolution and protection of port users.

That is where the regulator should be.

A regulator should establish the rules, monitor compliance, protect competition and provide a level playing field.

It should not simultaneously be responsible for promoting or developing the infrastructure over which it may subsequently have regulatory jurisdiction.

The Minister put the principle rather simply: “A regulator cannot function as an operator, and at the same time, be expected to be perceived as an unbiased referee.”

We agree.

And we believe the same principle should apply to infrastructure development.

Why NPA makes sense for Inland Dry Ports

An inland dry port is not simply a warehouse located somewhere away from the coastline.

Properly developed, it is an extension of the national port logistics chain.

It connects the seaports to the hinterland. It facilitates cargo movement by road and rail, supports customs clearance, reduces pressure on congested seaports and brings port services closer to importers and exporters.

The Nigerian Shippers’ Council itself identifies these objectives among the principal benefits of inland dry ports.

That makes the NPA a logical institutional home for the developmental and infrastructure-integration aspects of the IDP programme.

The NPA already operates within the national port infrastructure ecosystem. Consequently, integrating inland dry ports into the wider seaport network, rail connections, cargo evacuation systems and port logistics strategy should become considerably easier.

But there is an important qualification.

Transfer must not mean merely transfer of paperwork.

It must mean integration.

The real test begins now

The danger is that Nigeria could transfer the responsibility from one agency to another without solving the underlying problem.

That would simply produce a new institutional arrangement around an old system.

The NPA should therefore approach the IDP programme as part of a national logistics network, not as a collection of isolated dry-port projects.

An effective IDP strategy should answer some basic questions:

- Which seaports will each IDP principally serve?
- What cargo corridors will they support?
- How will rail and road connections be integrated?
- What cargo volumes can each facility realistically handle?
- How will Customs and other government agencies operate at the facilities?
- What incentives will encourage shippers to use them?
- How will congestion at the seaports translate into cargo diversion to the hinterland?
- What commercial model will make the facilities financially sustainable?
- How will private concessionaires be protected from arbitrary policy changes?
- And, critically, how will cargo visibility be maintained across the entire port-to-hinterland chain?

These questions matter more than simply changing the agency responsible.

We should also be careful not to create another monopoly

There is another issue that deserves attention.

Separating NPERA from NPA is a positive development. But the country must avoid replacing one form of institutional overlap with another form of concentration.

NPA should develop and integrate the infrastructure. NPERA should regulate the economic environment in which NPA and private operators function.

That distinction must remain clear.

Where private-sector concessionaires operate IDPs, their commercial relationship with government must be transparent, predictable and bankable.

Investors cannot be expected to commit long-term capital to inland logistics infrastructure if the institutional rules keep changing.

The emergence of NPERA should therefore provide the regulatory certainty that investors have long needed.

What happens to the Shippers’ Council legacy?

There is also a need to acknowledge history.

The Nigerian Shippers’ Council was instrumental in promoting the inland dry-port concept. Its own records describe the IDP programme as a mechanism for bringing shipping services closer to hinterland shippers, reducing seaport congestion, lowering transportation costs and supporting rail development.

The transfer should therefore not be interpreted as a repudiation of the Council's work.

Rather, it should be viewed as institutional maturation.

The Council's role in developing the concept has served its purpose. With the emergence of NPERA, its future regulatory responsibilities should be clearly defined, while NPA takes responsibility for integrating IDPs into the physical port and logistics architecture.

That is how institutional reform should work.

The bigger opportunity: one Nigerian port system

This is where we believe the government's decision could become transformational.

Nigeria should stop thinking about Lagos Port, Onne, Warri, Calabar, Lekki, inland dry ports, rail freight corridors and road logistics as disconnected projects.

They are components of one national port and logistics system.

The ultimate objective should be to enable a container destined for Kano, Kaduna, Aba, Ibadan or other hinterland markets to move through the most efficient corridor without unnecessary dependence on the congested Lagos port environment.

The IDP should become the point at which cargo effectively enters the hinterland economy—not merely another place where containers are parked.

And there is a digital dimension

There is an additional opportunity that government should not overlook.

If inland dry ports are to function as genuine extensions of the seaports, Nigeria needs end-to-end cargo visibility.

Cargo should be digitally traceable from vessel arrival, through terminal handling and evacuation, to rail or road movement and final inland processing.

This is where Nigeria's broader port digitalisation agenda becomes important.

An integrated digital architecture connecting vessels, cargo, terminals, inland dry ports, transport operators, Customs and relevant regulatory agencies could significantly reduce opacity, delays and opportunities for informal intervention.

The physical IDP network and the digital logistics network should therefore be developed together.

One without the other will limit the benefits.

Our position

We see the Minister's decision as a welcome step in the right direction.

But we would go further.

This should be the beginning of a comprehensive clarification of Nigeria's maritime institutional architecture.

NPERA should regulate.
NPA should develop and manage port infrastructure.
Private operators should operate commercially within clearly defined rules.
And government agencies should collaborate through clearly delineated mandates rather than competing jurisdictions.

That is the model Nigeria needs.

The transfer of IDP functions to NPA therefore matters for more than inland dry ports.

It is a test of whether Nigeria is finally prepared to move from a system of overlapping maritime institutions to a coherent port governance architecture.

The opportunity is now before us.

Let us not merely transfer functions. Let us build a system.

Oyetola’s Three-Year Maritime Scorecard: All Positives — But Where Are the Red Flags?A scorecard should celebrate progre...
02/09/2026

Oyetola’s Three-Year Maritime Scorecard: All Positives — But Where Are the Red Flags?

A scorecard should celebrate progress. But it must also confront the unfinished business.

Editorial views:

The Minister of Marine and Blue Economy, Adegboyega Oyetola, has presented his three-year scorecard, describing a maritime sector undergoing a “far-reaching transformation” since the establishment of the Federal Ministry of Marine and Blue Economy in August 2023.

And, to be fair, there is plenty to celebrate.

The Ministry reports that agencies under its supervision generated ₦1.83 trillion in 2025, compared with ₦700.79 billion in 2023 — a claimed 160 per cent increase. It points to progress in maritime security, port infrastructure, digitisation, seafarer development, indigenous shipping, inland waterways and the implementation of the National Policy on Marine and Blue Economy.

Nigeria has also recorded important institutional milestones, including the commencement of the Nigeria Ports Economic Regulatory Agency (NPERA), the long-awaited opening of the Cabotage Vessel Financing Fund (CVFF) application process, and the reported lifting of the United States Coast Guard's longstanding restrictions on vessels from Nigeria.

These are not insignificant developments.

But there is a problem with celebrating a maritime scorecard entirely through government activity and institutional milestones.

The real test is not whether government has launched programmes.

The real test is whether the Nigerian maritime economy is becoming cheaper, more competitive, more Nigerian-owned and more productive.

And that is where the questions begin.

1. ₦1.83 trillion in revenue — but how much economic value has been created?

The revenue figure is impressive.

But revenue generation by government agencies is not the same thing as economic growth in the maritime industry.

There is an important distinction between:

money collected by government and wealth created by the maritime economy.

A genuinely transformational maritime scorecard should therefore go beyond agency revenues and disclose:

- maritime-sector contribution to GDP;
- foreign exchange retained by Nigerian shipping companies;
- value of cargo handled through Nigerian ports;
- Nigerian-owned tonnage;
- percentage of coastal cargo carried by Nigerian vessels;
- maritime employment created;
- shipbuilding and ship-repair activity;
- reduction in logistics costs;
- reduction in cargo dwell time;
- growth in maritime exports;
- and the amount of freight earnings retained in Nigeria.

Otherwise, there is a danger of measuring the success of the regulator's cash register rather than the success of the maritime economy.

2. The CVFF: A breakthrough — or another unfinished promise?

Perhaps the most politically significant development has been the movement on the Cabotage Vessel Financing Fund.

After more than two decades of waiting, the CVFF application portal was launched in January 2026.

That deserves credit.

But the industry's celebration must be tempered by one uncomfortable fact: opening a portal is not the same as financing a fleet.

By July, reports indicated that 70 applications had been received but only 20 applicants had passed the initial screening stage, with concerns still surrounding actual disbursement.

That raises the central question:

When will Nigerian shipowners actually receive the money and put vessels into operation?

The CVFF cannot become another government milestone measured by ceremonies, portals and announcements.

Its success should ultimately be measured by:

How many Nigerian-owned vessels entered service because of CVFF financing?

And then:

How many Nigerian seafarers, shipyards, marine engineers, insurers, financiers and suppliers benefited from those vessels?

Until that happens, CVFF remains a promise in transition rather than a completed achievement.

3. If the maritime sector is transforming, why is doing business still so expensive?

This may be the biggest question confronting the scorecard.

Nigeria's ambition is to become a maritime hub for West and Central Africa.

Yet the cost and efficiency of Nigerian ports remain serious concerns.

As recently as September 2026, industry operators were still pointing to cargo dwell times in Lagos of approximately 18–21 days, compared with much shorter periods in Ghana and Cotonou.

Earlier in the year, stakeholders also warned that tariff increases could make Nigerian ports significantly more expensive than competing West African ports.

This matters enormously.

A port is not competitive merely because it has a new terminal, new equipment or improved infrastructure.

A competitive port must provide:

speed + predictability + competitive charges + efficient documentation + reliable access + intermodal connectivity.

If importers and exporters continue paying substantial additional costs through demurrage, storage, trucking, documentation and delays, then the maritime sector still has a major competitiveness problem.

4. Lagos cannot remain Nigeria's maritime answer to everything

The Ministry itself acknowledges the under-utilisation of the Eastern ports.

Government has recently reaffirmed the need to revitalise Onne, Calabar and Port Harcourt to reduce pressure on Lagos and create a more balanced national port system.

This is not merely a regional development issue.

It is an economic efficiency issue.

Why should cargo originating in the South-East, South-South or northern hinterland necessarily depend disproportionately on Lagos?

A genuinely integrated maritime economy requires:

Lagos + Eastern Ports + Inland Waterways + Rail + Roads + Dry Ports + Warehousing

to function as one logistics system.

Until Nigeria achieves that integration, the maritime transformation remains incomplete.

5. Maritime security: an achievement that must not be taken for granted

The progress on piracy and maritime security is one area where the administration deserves considerable recognition.

The Ministry has highlighted sustained zero piracy and the strengthening of the Deep Blue Project, while Nigeria has also secured the lifting of the longstanding US Coast Guard restrictions affecting vessels from Nigerian ports.

These are important achievements because maritime insecurity imposes hidden costs on the entire economy.

But security is not a one-time achievement.

Piracy can return.

Illegal fishing can expand.

Oil theft can mutate.

Sea robbery, kidnapping, pollution and unregulated activity can undermine confidence.

Therefore, the question for the next three years is not simply:

“Have we eliminated piracy?”

It is:

“Can Nigeria build a permanent, intelligence-led maritime security architecture that remains effective without extraordinary intervention?”

6. The seafarer numbers look impressive — but what about career sustainability?

The scorecard reports significant progress in seafarer training, certification, placements and earnings, including thousands of Nigerian seafarers placed on vessels and substantial increases in reported earnings.

Again, these are welcome developments.

But the deeper question is whether Nigeria is creating a sustainable maritime labour market.

Training thousands of seafarers is only one side of the equation.

Nigeria must also ensure:

- regular sea-time opportunities;
- internationally recognised certification;
- career progression;
- employment on Nigerian-owned vessels;
- protection of seafarers' welfare;
- maritime pensions and social protection;
- specialist training for LNG, offshore, tanker and emerging green-shipping operations.

The objective should not merely be to produce Nigerian seafarers who work for foreign shipowners.

The larger objective should be to create a Nigerian maritime ecosystem capable of employing, retaining and advancing Nigerian maritime professionals.

7. The blue economy is still much bigger than shipping

Perhaps the greatest unfinished business is the “blue economy” itself.

Shipping and ports are important, but they are only part of the opportunity.

Nigeria's National Policy on Marine and Blue Economy provides a broader framework covering areas including shipping, fisheries, offshore energy, marine biotechnology and other marine-related activities.

Yet the Ministry itself has acknowledged that implementation remains the critical next stage and has called for stronger collaboration among federal and state governments, investors and development partners.

This is revealing.

It means the policy architecture exists.

But policy is not yet economic activity.

Where are the large-scale investments in:

- aquaculture;
- marine biotechnology;
- ocean data;
- marine renewable energy;
- coastal tourism;
- shipbuilding;
- ship repair;
- offshore services;
- marine logistics;
- ocean research;
- sustainable fisheries?

Nigeria has an enormous blue-economy opportunity.

But announcing the opportunity is not the same as monetising it.

8. Inland waterways remain a major unfinished chapter

The Ministry has undertaken interventions in inland waterways, including safety measures, hydrographic surveys and efforts to improve regulation.

But the fundamental question remains:

Why is Nigeria still overwhelmingly dependent on roads for freight when it possesses an extensive network of navigable waterways?

Indeed, when presenting the 2026 budget, the Minister himself highlighted the excessive dependence on road haulage and the potential of safer inland waterways to reduce logistics costs.

This should become one of the defining targets of the next phase:

Move freight from roads to waterways wherever economically and technically viable.

That would simultaneously reduce road deterioration, logistics costs, congestion and carbon emissions.

9. NPERA creates another opportunity — and another test

The commencement of the Nigeria Ports Economic Regulatory Agency is potentially one of the most consequential institutional developments in the sector.

NPERA is expected to regulate tariffs and charges, promote competition, improve service standards, facilitate cargo movement and resolve commercial disputes.

But creating another institution does not automatically solve a regulatory problem.

The real challenge will be institutional clarity.

Nigeria already has NPA, NIMASA, NSC, Customs, CRFFN and other agencies interacting with different parts of the maritime value chain.

Now NPERA enters the equation.

The danger is that Nigeria could end up with more regulators without necessarily having better regulation.

The success of NPERA should therefore be measured by whether it reduces regulatory friction — not whether it produces another layer of paperwork.

10. And what about transparency?

This is perhaps the most important question of all.

A government scorecard should ideally be independently verifiable.

For every major claim, Nigerians should be able to see:

baseline → target → achievement → independent verification → economic impact.

For example:

Instead of simply saying “revenue increased,” tell us how much came from each agency and why.

Instead of saying “port efficiency improved,” publish vessel turnaround and cargo dwell-time data.

Instead of saying “indigenous shipping is growing,” publish the number and tonnage of Nigerian-owned and Nigerian-flagged vessels.

Instead of saying “CVFF has been activated,” publish the number of beneficiaries, vessels financed and funds disbursed.

Instead of saying “jobs were created,” publish the methodology used to calculate them.

That would transform the scorecard from a government performance statement into an industry performance dashboard.

The Verdict: Progress — Yes. Transformation — Not Yet Proven.

The Oyetola years should not be dismissed.

There have been genuine institutional achievements.

The creation of a dedicated Ministry has elevated the political visibility of the maritime sector.

Revenue has risen.

Maritime security has improved.

The US restrictions have been lifted.

The National Policy on Marine and Blue Economy has been established.

NPERA has commenced operations.

The CVFF has finally moved from dormancy toward implementation.

Seafarer development has received attention.

These are significant steps.

But steps are not the destination.

Nigeria has spent decades talking about becoming a maritime nation while much of the economic value generated by its maritime trade has continued to escape to foreign shipowners, foreign financiers, foreign insurers, foreign logistics providers and foreign service companies.

The ultimate test of this administration's maritime legacy therefore cannot simply be the number of reforms announced.

It must be whether, by the end of the journey, Nigeria has:

more Nigerian-owned ships;

more Nigerian-controlled freight;

more competitive ports;

lower logistics costs;

more indigenous maritime finance;

more cargo moving through Nigerian ports;

more maritime jobs;

stronger shipbuilding and repair capacity;

safer and commercially viable inland waterways;

and, above all,

a substantially larger share of the nation's maritime wealth retained in Nigeria.

The Bottom Line

Oyetola's three-year scorecard is not an empty achievement report. There are measurable accomplishments deserving recognition.

But neither should it be treated as the final verdict on Nigeria's maritime transformation.

The scorecard tells us what government has done.

The next scorecard must tell Nigerians what the maritime economy has become.

And those are not necessarily the same thing.

The real maritime scorecard should therefore begin where the government's scorecard ends:

How much cheaper is Nigerian trade?
How much richer are Nigerian shipowners?
How many more ships belong to Nigerians?
How many more Nigerians earn sustainable maritime incomes?
And how much of Nigeria's enormous blue-economy wealth is finally staying in Nigeria?

Until those questions can be answered with hard numbers, the appropriate editorial verdict is neither “failure” nor “mission accomplished.”

It is simply:

Good progress. Significant milestones. But the transformation still has to prove itself in the marketplace.

Dangote Wants Ships. Nigeria Needs a Shipping Industry.Maritime EditorialThere is something profoundly revealing about D...
26/08/2026

Dangote Wants Ships. Nigeria Needs a Shipping Industry.

Maritime Editorial

There is something profoundly revealing about Dangote Industries’ decision to acquire its own ships.

Africa’s largest industrial conglomerate reportedly struggled to find a vessel capable of carrying just 1,000 metric tonnes of cement from Nigeria to Ghana. Its response is straightforward: if the ships cannot be found, buy them.

At first glance, this looks like another corporate expansion story. It is not.

It is a loud warning about the state of Nigeria’s maritime economy.

When an industrial giant has to become a shipowner

Dangote already has enormous industrial production capacity. Dangote Cement alone has reached about 50 million tonnes of annual production capacity, while the group has established extensive road logistics infrastructure to serve West and Central African markets. But road transport across borders comes with taxes, delays and other costs that undermine the competitiveness of Nigerian exports.

The obvious alternative should be maritime transport.

Yet, according to Dangote, the ships simply are not available.

That is the paradox.

Nigeria is a major oil-producing country, possesses thousands of kilometres of coastline and sits strategically on the Atlantic trade route. It is also trying to position itself as a major player in the African Continental Free Trade Area.

And yet a major Nigerian exporter cannot readily secure a small vessel for a short regional voyage.

That is not merely a Dangote problem. It is a national competitiveness problem.

Dangote is exposing the missing link in Nigeria's export strategy

Nigeria has spent considerable energy discussing production: refineries, cement, fertiliser, agriculture, manufacturing and non-oil exports.

But production without logistics is incomplete economics.

The real question should therefore be:

Who will carry Nigeria's exports?

The answer increasingly appears to be foreign shipowners.

That means Nigerian manufacturers may produce the cargo, Nigerian ports may handle the cargo, Nigerian banks may finance the transactions and Nigerian consumers may ultimately bear the logistics costs—while the freight revenue goes elsewhere.

Reports indicate that Nigeria has effectively lost much of the freight earnings associated with its international trade since the collapse of the Nigerian National Shipping Line in 1995.

The country's maritime policy cannot afford to treat this as an incidental issue.

The CVFF question has just become harder to ignore

Perhaps the most uncomfortable part of the Dangote announcement is that the country already has a mechanism designed to address precisely this problem: the Cabotage Vessel Financing Fund (CVFF).

The fund has reportedly accumulated about $700 million, with a stated purpose of supporting Nigerian ship acquisition and building indigenous shipping capacity. Applications were opened earlier this year, but prospective beneficiaries are still waiting for actual disbursement.

Now one of Nigeria's biggest industrial exporters is effectively saying:

We need ships.

The maritime industry has been saying the same thing for years.

So the question becomes unavoidable:

«If Nigeria has a maritime financing mechanism designed to develop Nigerian shipping, why are major Nigerian cargo interests still having to contemplate building their own shipping capacity because suitable vessels cannot be found?»

This is where policy must move from announcements to ex*****on.

But Dangote buying ships should not become another isolated success story

There is a danger in celebrating Dangote's proposed fleet without asking the bigger question.

If Dangote buys ships, it solves Dangote's problem.

But what happens to the smaller exporter in Kano? The agricultural producer in Benue? The manufacturer in Aba? The cement producer outside Lagos? The fertiliser exporter? The emerging trader trying to move 500, 1,000 or 5,000 tonnes across the Gulf of Guinea?

They cannot all buy ships.

Nigeria therefore needs commercial shipping capacity, not merely corporate-owned shipping capacity.

There is a significant difference.

A national maritime strategy should encourage Nigerian-owned tonnage that can serve multiple exporters and multiple trade corridors—not simply create isolated private fleets for individual conglomerates.

This is where the blue economy rhetoric meets reality

Nigeria frequently speaks about the blue economy.

But a blue economy is not created by conferences, slogans or policy documents.

It requires ships.

It requires shipowners.

It requires maritime finance.

It requires cargo aggregation.

It requires efficient ports.

It requires marine insurance.

It requires competent seafarers.

It requires ship management.

It requires ship repair and maintenance.

And above all, it requires cargo to be deliberately connected to Nigerian-owned tonnage.

Dangote's predicament provides perhaps one of the clearest real-world demonstrations of that missing ecosystem.

There is also an opportunity hiding inside the problem

The answer does not necessarily require government to become a shipowner.

In fact, Nigeria's history should make policymakers cautious about simply recreating a state-owned national shipping line.

The smarter model could be private-sector-led, government-enabled shipping finance.

Commercial banks, Afreximbank, development finance institutions, Nigerian investors, cargo owners and professional shipowners could form structured consortia.

The CVFF could potentially serve as catalytic capital rather than simply a disbursement programme.

For example, a properly structured vessel-financing programme could combine:

CVFF + commercial bank debt + development finance + cargo-backed contracts + private equity + professional ship management.

That could create vessels supported by actual cargo demand rather than ships acquired speculatively and left idle.

And Dangote's own requirement demonstrates that the cargo exists.

The bigger opportunity is regional

The real prize may not even be Nigerian coastal trade.

It is the West and Central African maritime corridor.

Nigeria is surrounded by markets that require cement, fertiliser, petroleum products, food, manufactured goods and industrial inputs.

Meanwhile, recent data show just how dramatically Nigeria's seaborne petroleum-product exports have grown. EIA data indicate that Nigerian seaborne petroleum-product exports have increased seven-fold since 2023, with exports averaging about 350,000 barrels per day in the second quarter of 2026.

That is a maritime trade opportunity of enormous proportions.

But exporting products without developing the shipping capacity to carry them leaves Nigeria capturing only part of the value chain.

The question NIMASA and government should be asking

The question should not simply be:

"How many Nigerian-owned ships do we have?"

It should be:

"What percentage of Nigeria's export cargo is carried by Nigerian-controlled tonnage?"

That is a much more meaningful performance indicator.

Because the objective is not to own ships for the sake of owning ships.

The objective is to capture freight income, develop maritime expertise, create jobs, strengthen the balance of payments and make Nigerian exports more competitive.

Dangote may have accidentally become Nigeria's maritime wake-up call

There is an irony here.

Dangote built one of Africa's largest industrial complexes. Nigeria has built major port infrastructure. The country has a maritime regulator, a port authority, a shippers' regulator, a maritime financing fund and a blue economy agenda.

Yet one of Nigeria's biggest exporters says it cannot find a ship for a modest regional cargo.

Perhaps Dangote is not merely preparing to buy ships.

Perhaps he is demonstrating what happens when industrial policy moves faster than maritime policy.

The lesson should not be that every Nigerian industrialist must become a shipowner.

The lesson should be that Nigeria must build a shipping industry capable of serving Nigerian industry.

Otherwise, Nigeria will continue to produce the cargo, export the cargo—and watch someone else earn the freight.

"Maritime Industry Verdict"

Dangote's proposed vessel acquisitions should be welcomed—but they should also embarrass policymakers into action.

The country's $700 million CVFF cannot remain a financial monument while Nigerian exporters search for ships.

Nigeria does not need another maritime conference on indigenous shipping.

It needs tonnage, financing, cargo commitments and vessels in operation.

The ultimate test of Nigeria's maritime renaissance is not how many policies it announces.

It is whether the next Nigerian exporter can call a shipbroker and hear:

"Yes. We have a vessel."

That is when Nigeria's blue economy will finally begin to look less like an aspiration—and more like an industry.

Address

Eko

Website

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Nigerian Maritime Organization posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Shortcuts

Share