The Provisional Committee of the Proposed Nigerian Coast Guard (PC-NCG) has urged the Federal Government to use the lifting of a 12-year United States Coast Guard (USCG) Condition of Entry on vessels arriving from Nigeria as an opportunity to review the country’s maritime security system.
Key Highlights
- PC-NCG welcomes USCG restriction removal: The committee described the lifting of the 12-year Condition of Entry as an opportunity to strengthen Nigeria’s maritime security system.
- Calls for national maritime security audit: The group urged the Federal Government and National Assembly to examine the weaknesses that led to the restriction.
- 12-year restriction exposed deficiencies: Nigeria was first notified of maritime security shortcomings in 2013, with the restriction imposed in 2014.
- Economic cost assessment demanded: PC-NCG wants government to determine the financial and commercial impact of the prolonged restriction.
- Coast Guard proposal renewed: The committee used the development to strengthen its call for a dedicated Nigerian Coast Guard.
The group welcomed the removal of the restriction but cautioned against treating the development as an achievement, arguing that the long period under the restriction exposed weaknesses that should be addressed to prevent a recurrence.
In a statement signed by its Director of Communication and Public Affairs, Dr Piriye Kiyaramo, on behalf of the committee’s Chief Executive and Accounting Officer, Capt. Noah Ichaba, the PC-NCG described the 12-year restriction as an institutional burden that highlighted deficiencies in Nigeria’s maritime security architecture.
“The lifting of the restriction is not an achievement Nigeria should celebrate. It is the correction of a maritime-security failure Nigeria must examine,” Ichaba said.
He questioned why Nigeria remained under the restriction for 12 years after the initial maritime security deficiencies were identified.
Nigeria was notified by the USCG on March 26, 2013, of identified security deficiencies and was given recommendations for addressing them. The PC-NCG said the Condition of Entry was subsequently imposed in 2014 after the USCG determined that the identified shortcomings had not been adequately addressed.
For more than a decade, vessels travelling from Nigeria to the United States were subjected to additional security procedures, documentation requirements, scrutiny and possible delays.
The group said the measures, which were linked to compliance with the International Ship and Port Facility Security (ISPS) Code, also carried economic implications for Nigeria’s maritime sector.
While commending the Federal Government, the Ministry of Marine and Blue Economy, the Nigerian Maritime Administration and Safety Agency (NIMASA), port authorities, terminal operators and other stakeholders for the corrective measures that eventually led to the lifting of the restriction, the PC-NCG called for an assessment of the economic cost of the 12-year period.
“How much public money was spent? How many delegations travelled? How much commercial time was lost? Nigerians deserve to know what those twelve years cost,” the group said.
The committee called on the Federal Government and National Assembly to conduct a comprehensive national maritime security audit.
According to the group, the review should determine the financial and commercial cost of the restriction, why it took so long to resolve the identified deficiencies, which maritime responsibilities remain fragmented, what additional capacity is required and how the proposed Nigerian Coast Guard would fit into the country’s maritime security architecture.
The group also used the development to renew its argument for the establishment of a dedicated Nigerian Coast Guard.
The PC-NCG maintained that the USCG’s concerns were focused on the effectiveness of Nigeria’s civil maritime security system rather than the strength or capabilities of the Nigerian Navy.
“A country can have a powerful Navy and still require specialised institutions for maritime law enforcement, port security, search and rescue, and coastal policing,” Ichaba said.
He argued that the existence of several maritime agencies did not automatically amount to an integrated maritime security system.
The committee stressed that its proposed Coast Guard would not be designed to replace the Nigerian Navy, NIMASA, the Nigerian Ports Authority or the National Inland Waterways Authority.
“The Navy must not be the loser. But the Navy must not be the obstacle. A strong Coast Guard does not mean a weak Navy. A strong Navy does not mean Nigeria cannot have a Coast Guard,” Ichaba said.
Read also:
He added that specialised responsibilities and clearer institutional mandates could strengthen rather than weaken Nigeria’s overall maritime security architecture.
The PC-NCG urged the government to focus on preventing future maritime security failures instead of waiting for external regulators to identify weaknesses.
“Do not wait twelve years again. Do not wait for another foreign regulator to identify a weakness. Build capacity before the crisis,” the group said.
It maintained that stronger maritime security was essential to the success of Nigeria’s Blue Economy agenda.
“No Blue Economy without Blue Security and Blue Justice,” the committee stated.
The PC-NCG is a policy and advocacy body campaigning for the establishment of a dedicated civil maritime security and maritime law enforcement institution in Nigeria. The organisation says its advocacy focuses on institutional specialisation, clearer responsibilities and preventive governance within the country’s maritime sector.
