Twelve Years Later: Not a celebration; but a call for maritime correction – Says PC-NCG

The Provisional Committee of the Proposed Nigerian Coast Guard (PC-NCG) does not regard the lifting of the United States Coast Guard’s Condition of Entry on vessels arriving from Nigeria principally as an occasion for celebration. It is, first and foremost, an occasion for sober reflection, accountability and correction. The lifting of the restriction is not the achievement Nigeria should celebrate; it is the correction of a maritime-security failure Nigeria must examine.

A restriction that lasted for twelve years did not arise from nowhere. It arose because something was deficient, something was not done when it should have been done, and an identified maritime-security problem was allowed to become a prolonged national burden.

Advertisements

The proper response, therefore, is not triumphalism over the lifting of the restriction, but an honest examination of why the restriction became necessary in the first place, what its twelve-year continuation cost Nigeria, and what institutional reforms are required to ensure that Nigeria never again permits such a failure to persist.

Nevertheless, we congratulate the Federal Government, the Federal Ministry of Marine and Blue Economy, the Nigerian Maritime Administration and Safety Agency (NIMASA), Nigerian port authorities, terminal operators and all maritime stakeholders whose efforts contributed to this important development. PC-NCG acknowledges the correction. But we will not celebrate the failure that made the correction necessary.” The question is not why the restriction was finally lifted. The question is why Nigeria carried it for twelve years.”
Nigeria was notified on 26 March 2013 of identified maritime-security deficiencies and was given recommendations and an opportunity to respond.

Advertisements

The U.S. Coast Guard subsequently stated that it could not confirm that the identified deficiencies had been corrected. The resulting Condition of Entry was then imposed in 2014. Therefore, what began as an identifiable problem became a twelve-year national load and affliction.

There is a much bigger question that the lifting of the Condition of Entry places before the nation: What should have been a timely corrective action became a twelve-year national burden. Why did it take twelve years? That is the question Nigeria must now have the courage to ask. The original United States determination did not come without warning.

A nation should not celebrate the removal of a burden that it should never have carried in the first place; it should examine why it carried it, what it cost, and what must change so that it never happens again.” But Nigeria must not allow celebration to silence accountability.

What should have been timely corrective action became prolonged institutional failure. This is the appropriate description. It was a failure of timely corrective action. It was a failure of preventive governance. It was institutional inertia in the face of an identified maritime-security problem. And, most importantly, it became an avoidable national burden. We say this without diminishing the achievements of those who have now helped bring the matter to a successful conclusion. Indeed, their achievement makes the question even more important: If the problem could ultimately be corrected, why was it permitted to remain unresolved for so long?

Twelve years of additional burden. For twelve years, Nigeria lived with the consequences of the Condition of Entry. Affected vessels faced additional security requirements and scrutiny associated with calls at specified Nigerian ports before proceeding to the United States. The original U.S. measures included enhanced security measures, guarding access points, security documentation and reporting requirements, with additional measures potentially required following U.S. Coast Guard examination.

This was therefore not merely a diplomatic inconvenience. It had a commercial dimension. It had a regulatory dimension. It had a reputational dimension. It had an institutional dimension. And it had a financial dimension.

NIMASA itself reported that the U.S. Coast Guard’s assessments and the Condition of Entry were connected to concerns about compliance with the International Ship and Port Facility Security (ISPS) Code. NIMASA also acknowledged the economic consequences associated with additional security requirements and delays.
Consequently, PC-NCG describes those years as: Twelve years of avoidable maritime burden. Twelve years of additional scrutiny. Twelve years of additional compliance. Twelve years of additional procedures. Twelve years of institutional response. Twelve years of technical engagement. Twelve years of diplomatic attention. Twelve years of commercial uncertainty. Twelve years during which resources, personnel, time and public attention had to be devoted to correcting a problem that should have been addressed much earlier.

This is why the lifting of the restriction should not merely be celebrated. It should also be studied. How much did the twelve-year problem cost Nigeria? PC-NCG is not making an allegation that Nigeria paid bribes or entered into improper secret arrangements to secure the lifting of the Condition of Entry. We have seen no evidence upon which such an allegation can responsibly be made. But that does not mean the Nigerian people should not ask legitimate questions. We therefore call for transparency.

How much public money was spent over these twelve years on: technical assessments; regulatory interventions; compliance programmes; international engagements; diplomatic missions; official delegations; peer-review exercises; meetings and consultations; institutional reforms; security improvements; documentation and certification; personnel and administrative costs; and other activities undertaken in response to the Condition of Entry?

How many official delegations travelled? How many technical missions were undertaken? How many meetings were held? How many man-hours were consumed? How much commercial time was lost? How much additional cost was transferred to shipping operators? How much opportunity was lost while Nigeria worked to correct the consequences of an identified maritime-security deficiency? These are not hostile questions. They are not questions intended to diminish today’s achievement.

They are questions of public accountability. If Nigeria has spent twelve years resolving a problem, Nigerians deserve to know what those twelve years cost. The celebration should therefore be accompanied by a national cost-of-delay assessment.

The question of “self-inflicted” Was this burden self-inflicted? PC-NCG believes the answer requires careful wording. We should not suggest that Nigeria deliberately created the problem. But we can properly describe it as: an avoidable, self-inflicted institutional burden.
Why? Because the original deficiencies were associated with Nigeria’s own maritime-security and port-security arrangements, and Nigeria was notified and given recommendations for corrective action.

This was therefore not an unavoidable act of nature. It was not a burden that Nigeria was destined to carry. It was an institutional problem that could have been corrected earlier. The appropriate lesson is therefore: Nigeria must never again wait for an external maritime authority to identify a weakness in our maritime-security architecture before we take decisive action.

The twelve-year episode reveals something far more important. The United States Coast Guard did not approach the question by asking:
“Does Nigeria have a Navy?” It asked whether Nigeria’s maritime and port-security system was effective. That is fundamental.

A country can possess a powerful Navy and still require specialised institutions for: maritime law enforcement; port and coastal security; vessel boarding and inspection; search and rescue; fisheries protection; marine environmental protection; coastal policing; protection of offshore installations; protection of maritime commerce; enforcement of maritime laws; and continuous civil maritime-security operations. Having maritime institutions is not the same as having an integrated maritime-security architecture. This is the lesson Nigeria must learn.

The United States has shown us the value of specialisation. There is a profound irony in this development. The United States Coast Guard has been involved in assessing Nigeria’s maritime and port-security compliance. The United States itself maintains a distinct Coast Guard institution. That Coast Guard is not simply another Navy. It performs specialised maritime-security, safety and law-enforcement functions within a distinct institutional framework. Nigeria does not need to copy the United States. But Nigeria must learn from the principle: maritime functions must have clear institutional ownership.

A Navy is not automatically a Coast Guard. A maritime regulator is not automatically a maritime law-enforcement agency. A port authority is not automatically a coastal security service. A police marine unit is not automatically a national Coast Guard. And a collection of agencies performing pieces of maritime functions does not automatically constitute a coherent maritime-security architecture. This is where the Nigerian Coast Guard becomes necessary. PC-NCG has never proposed the Nigerian Coast Guard as a replacement for the Nigerian Navy or any other agency. We reject that false narrative. The Navy must not be the loser. But equally: The Navy must not be the obstacle.

Nigeria needs a strong Navy for military maritime defence. Nigeria needs NIMASA for maritime administration and regulation. Nigeria needs NPA for port administration. Nigeria needs NIWA for its statutory inland-waterways responsibilities. Nigeria needs Customs, Police and other agencies for their respective statutory functions. But Nigeria also needs a properly constituted institution dedicated to the specialised functions of: Civil maritime security and maritime law enforcement. That is the institutional space the proposed Nigerian Coast Guard is intended to occupy. It is not duplication. It is specialisation. It is division of responsibility. It is institutional clarity. It is operational continuity. And it is national preparedness.

The question is no longer “do we need another agency?” That question is too simplistic. The correct question is: “What maritime-security functions does Nigeria require, who is legally responsible for each one, who is operationally equipped to perform it, and where are the gaps?”

That is the question the National Assembly should ask. Where functions overlap, rationalize them. Where mandates conflict, clarify them. Where agencies are adequately performing their statutory functions, preserve them. Where functions are missing or inadequately covered, establish the appropriate institutional capacity. And where Nigeria requires a permanent civil maritime-security and maritime-law-enforcement capability, Parliament should provide it. This is not about creating an agency for the sake of creating an agency. It is about creating an institution for functions that the nation requires. The CoE should become a national lesson. The removal of the Condition of Entry is an achievement. But it should also become a warning.

Do not wait twelve years again. Do not wait for another foreign regulator to identify a weakness. Do not wait for another commercial restriction. Do not wait for another diplomatic shame. Do not wait until Nigerian businesses have absorbed years of additional costs. Do not wait until government has spent enormous institutional resources managing the consequences. Build the capacity before the crisis. That is the essence of preventive governance. That is the essence of national security. That is the essence of institutional planning.

PC-NCG calls for a national maritime security audit. In light of this development, PC-NCG respectfully calls upon the Federal Government and the National Assembly to undertake a comprehensive review of Nigeria’s maritime-security architecture. Such a review should answer five fundamental questions:

What did the twelve-year condition of entry cost Nigeria? – the financial, commercial, diplomatic and institutional cost should be established. Why did an identified deficiency take twelve years to resolve? – the nation should identify the institutional and policy obstacles that prolonged the problem. Which maritime functions remain fragmented or unclear? – Nigeria must know precisely who is responsible for what. What capacity is required to prevent a recurrence? – the country must build permanent capability rather than repeatedly reacting to external findings. Where does the proposed Nigerian Coast Guard fit? – the coast guard proposal should be assessed objectively against identified maritime-security functions, not through institutional rivalry. Let the Navy and the Coast Guard stop being presented as rivals. PC-NCG repeats its position: The Navy should not be the loser. But: The Navy should 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.

Indeed, properly designed institutions should make one another stronger. The Navy should concentrate on military maritime defence. The Coast Guard should concentrate on its statutory civil maritime-security and law-enforcement responsibilities.

NIMASA should regulate. NPA should administer ports. NIWA should perform its inland-waterways functions. Police, Customs and other agencies should perform their respective statutory responsibilities. Clarity is not competition. Specialisation is not duplication. Coordination is not conflict.
The real cost of delay. The greatest danger to Nigeria is not merely the money spent creating institutions.

Sometimes the greater cost is the money spent because institutions are inadequate, fragmented or poorly coordinated. The twelve-year Condition of Entry episode illustrates that principle. Nigeria did not simply have a security problem. Nigeria had to spend years responding to the consequences of the security problem. That is the difference between: The cost of prevention and the cost of failure. The first is an investment. The second is a burden. PC-NCG therefore asks Nigeria to stop looking at maritime-security institutions only as expenditure.

Maritime security is an economic investment. A secure port attracts confidence. A secure shipping environment protects trade. A secure coastline protects investment. A secure fishing corridor protects livelihoods. A secure offshore environment protects national assets. A secure maritime domain strengthens the Blue Economy. And a properly designed maritime-security architecture reduces the possibility that Nigeria will once again spend twelve years correcting an avoidable problem. The moment must not be wasted

The United States Coast Guard has now lifted the Condition of Entry following years of corrective work and assessment. NIMASA reported that the USCG had undertaken repeated on-the-spot assessments of Nigerian ports under a three-year programme designed to generate actionable information toward removal of the CoE. We commend that progress. But the next stage must be bigger than compliance with one foreign assessment.
Nigeria must build a maritime-security system that is strong because it is Nigerian, not merely because it has been accepted by a foreign authority. That is sovereignty. That is institutional maturity. That is national preparedness.

PC-NCG message to the national assembly. The Nigerian Coast Guard Bill should therefore not be approached as a competition between institutions. It should be examined as part of the larger question of Nigeria’s maritime future. The question should not be: “Why create a Coast Guard when the Navy exists?” The question should be: “What functions does Nigeria need continuously performed across its maritime domain, and which institution is best legally and operationally designed to perform each function?” If Nigeria needs those functions—and the maritime economy clearly does—then Nigeria needs the appropriate institution to perform them. Let evidence decide. Not institutional sentiment. Not historical attachment. Not rivalry. Not fear of duplication.

Not territorial competition. Let the functions determine the institution.
Do not wait another twelve years. PC-NCG draws patriotic lessons from the lifting of the Condition of Entry. But we refuse to allow the celebration to become an excuse for forgetting the lesson. For twelve years, Nigeria carried an avoidable maritime burden. For twelve years, resources were committed to correcting, managing and ultimately resolving a problem whose underlying deficiencies had been identified years earlier.

We must learn from that experience. We must ask what it cost. We must understand why it took so long. We must identify the institutional weaknesses that allowed it to persist. And, most importantly, we must build the capacity to prevent its recurrence. The lifting of the Condition of Entry should therefore not be the end of the conversation.

It should be the beginning of a new maritime security era for Nigeria. An era in which Nigeria anticipates maritime-security challenges rather than waiting for external authorities to expose them. An era in which maritime responsibilities are clearly assigned. An era in which institutions cooperate rather than compete. An era in which the Navy is strengthened, not weakened. An era in which the Coast Guard is established for the functions that require a dedicated civil maritime-security and law-enforcement institution. An era in which the Blue Economy is protected by Blue Security and governed by Blue Justice.
The lesson of the last twelve years is simple: Do not wait for another warning. Do not wait for another restriction. Do not wait for another twelve-year burden. Build the capacity now. The Coast Guard is not a cost to be feared. It is an investment in preventing the next national maritime security failure.

No Blue Economy without Blue Security and Blue Justice.

Capt. Noah Ichaba, Chief Executive & Accounting Officer, PC-NCG

August, 2026

Advertisements