There is a peculiar irony in the economics of ports: the more important a port becomes to a national economy, the more dangerous regulatory ambiguity becomes. Ports are not merely places where ships arrive and cargo leaves. They are economic ecosystems in which infrastructure, logistics, private capital, public authority, competition and international trade converge. A tariff imposed at a terminal can alter the landed cost of a commodity. A storage charge can determine whether a shipment remains commercially viable. A dispute over access, licensing or service standards can immobilise capital far beyond the port gate. That is why Nigeria’s decision to establish a permanent economic regulator for its ports is potentially more consequential than the creation of another government agency might suggest.
The Nigerian Ports Economic Regulatory Agency (NPERA) Act, 2026, signed into law by President Bola Tinubu in August, represents the culmination of a reform effort that has been years in gestation. It converts the Nigerian Shippers’ Council’s interim economic-regulatory role into a permanent statutory framework governing tariffs, competition, commercial charges and disputes. The instinct behind the reform is sound. Its implementation, however, will determine whether NPERA becomes the institutional architecture Nigeria’s ports have needed or simply another institution with a legitimate grievance against every other institution.
The problem is not regulation. It is jurisdiction
Nigeria does not suffer from a shortage of maritime institutions. It has the Nigerian Ports Authority, the Nigerian Maritime Administration and Safety Agency, the Nigeria Customs Service, and the Infrastructure Concession Regulatory Commission. It has also had the Nigerian Shippers’ Council performing economic regulatory functions. Each institution has a statutory or administrative rationale and a legitimate public purpose. Yet precisely because ports are economically interconnected, their mandates inevitably overlap. This is where the difficulty of NPERA begins.
A regulator concerned with tariffs cannot avoid infrastructure. A regulator concerned with competition cannot ignore concessions. A regulator concerned with service standards cannot remain entirely indifferent to operations. A regulator resolving commercial disputes will inevitably encounter contracts, licences, port dues and concession arrangements. However, economic relevance is not the same as legal jurisdiction.
That distinction must become the constitutional principle of Nigeria’s new port regulatory order. The danger is not that NPERA will be too powerful. The greater danger is that several institutions will simultaneously believe themselves powerful over the same subject.
Regulatory overlap is often defended in the language of institutional cooperation. In commercial life, however, overlapping jurisdiction is often experienced as something far less benign: uncertainty. Investors do not price ambiguity cheaply. A terminal operator considering a major investment does not merely ask whether Nigeria has a regulator. It asks which regulator can alter its commercial assumptions five years into a concession. A shipping line does not merely want to know what a charge is; it wants to know who has the legal authority to impose, review or invalidate it. A cargo owner does not simply want a dispute-resolution mechanism; it wants to know whether that mechanism will produce a decision quickly enough to matter.
The real currency of regulation, therefore, is not institutional power. It is predictability.
NPERA should not become a second port authority
The conceptual distinction between NPERA and the Nigerian Ports Authority is therefore critical. Nigeria’s port reform programme transformed the traditional public-sector model by moving substantial cargo-handling and terminal-operating functions into the private sector while retaining NPA as the landlord and port authority. That history matters.
The NPA’s function is fundamentally connected to the port estate, infrastructure and administration of the port environment. NPERA’s should be different: they should regulate the economic rules within which commercial actors operate. The difference may sound semantic. It is not.
Suppose a terminal operator charges users excessive or discriminatory fees. That is a natural subject for economic regulation. However, if the regulator begins dictating the operator’s daily allocation of equipment, berth management or operational deployment, the regulator has moved from economic oversight into port management. That is precisely the boundary that must be protected.
The new agency should be a referee, not another player. A referee establishes the rules, monitors compliance and intervenes when the rules are breached. A referee does not own the stadium, select the teams, operate the scoreboard and then adjudicate the match. The same logic should govern NPERA.
The concession question will be the first serious test
Nothing is likely to expose institutional boundaries more quickly than port concessions. The concession framework sits at the intersection of public assets, private investment, infrastructure policy and commercial regulation. It is therefore understandable that earlier iterations of the legislation raised concerns about possible overlap between NPERA, NPA and other institutions involved in concession policy. The answer should not be to grant one institution undefined supremacy over the others. It should be to distinguish the legal functions with precision.
There is a profound difference between granting a concession, administering a concession, monitoring economic performance under a concession, and regulating the market in which a concessionaire operates. The state can grant a concession. A landlord can administer its contractual relationship with the concessionaire. An economic regulator can examine whether the concessionaire is complying with applicable economic rules, service standards and competition requirements. These functions can coexist.
They become problematic only when the law permits each institution to believe that it owns all four. The implementation of NPERA should therefore begin with a regulatory map, not with another regulation.
Tariffs are where reform will become real
For businesses, the most visible consequence of NPERA will probably not be institutional architecture. It will be the price of moving cargo.
The Act is expected to give the regulator authority over port tariffs, terminal handling charges, storage fees and other commercial rates. For years, the economics of Nigerian trade have been burdened by the cumulative effect of charges that, viewed individually, may appear modest but collectively become material. Every additional charge eventually finds its way onto somebody’s balance sheet, usually the importer, exporter or consumer. But tariff regulation must also be intellectually honest.
A regulator cannot simultaneously demand world-class infrastructure, faster cargo handling, technological investment and competitive service while treating every increase in commercial pricing as evidence of abuse. Good economic regulation does not mean cheap regulation. It means justifiable pricing, transparent methodology and accountability.
NPERA will therefore need to develop a tariff philosophy that businesses can understand. What costs may properly be recovered? What constitutes a reasonable return on infrastructure? When does a charge become anti-competitive? How should efficiency gains be shared with users? When should tariffs be reviewed? The answers cannot be improvised each time a dispute arrives. The market needs rules before it needs enforcement.
Resist temptation of a “super-regulator”
There is an understandable temptation in public administration to solve institutional fragmentation by creating an institution powerful enough to override everyone else. It is an attractive idea. But it is usually a dangerous one. Ports sit at the intersection of trade, customs, maritime safety, security, infrastructure, logistics and commerce. Almost everything that happens at a port has an economic consequence. But that does not mean NPERA should regulate everything.
Navigation affects commerce. Customs delays affect commercial costs. Security affects insurance premiums. Infrastructure affects investment. Labour productivity affects terminal charges. If economic consequences were sufficient to confer regulatory jurisdiction, NPERA could eventually claim an interest in almost every activity within the maritime sector. That would not be economic regulation. It would be administrative expansion.
The wiser model is functional rather than territorial, each institution should regulate whatever the legislature has entrusted to it, even where there are consequences for the functions of another institution.
The regulatory map Nigeria now needs
Before the new regime becomes operational, the government should answer a series of deceptively simple questions.
- Who grants and administers port concessions?
- Who regulates concession performance?
- Who approves or reviews tariffs?
- Who collects statutory port dues?
- Who regulates commercial charges?
- Who licenses port facilities and service providers?
- Who controls port operations?
- Who exercises technical and safety regulation?
And, perhaps most importantly, who decides when two regulators disagree about jurisdiction?
These questions are not academic. They are the difference between regulatory certainty and regulatory litigation. The source material itself identifies the need for precisely this delineation among NPERA, NPA, NIMASA, Customs, ICRC and other institutions. There is a need to settle these questions before the first major jurisdictional dispute, not after.
A mature regulatory state does not wait for a dispute to discover the limits of its institutions. The true measure of NPERA will be what businesses no longer have to worry about. The success of NPERA should not be measured by the size of its headquarters, the number of regulations it issues or the number of disputes it decides. It should be measured by its practical response to the same questions raised.
- Can an importer predict the charges applicable to its cargo?
- Can a terminal operator understand the rules governing its commercial activities?
- Can a shipping line determine which authority has jurisdiction over a particular economic dispute?
- Can an investor commit capital without worrying that another government institution will later reinterpret the same commercial arrangement?
- Can a port user obtain redress without spending years navigating institutional boundaries?
If the answers to these questions are positive NPERA will have accomplished something much larger than bureaucratic reform. It will have reduced the transaction cost of doing business in Nigeria. That is the point that is sometimes lost in discussions about maritime regulation. The ultimate beneficiary of regulatory architecture is not the regulator. It is the economy. Ports are national infrastructure, but they are also markets. Their efficiency affects manufacturing, agriculture, retail, energy, construction and ultimately household prices. A dysfunctional port does not remain inside the port. It taxes the entire economy.
Law must move from architecture to discipline
Nigeria has spent years debating the institutional question. The new Act brings that debate into a different phase. The challenge is no longer whether economic regulation is necessary. The real question is if Nigeria can implement it intelligently. NPERA should be independent enough to challenge unreasonable commercial conduct but restrained enough to respect statutory boundaries. NPA should remain capable of managing the port estate and performing its statutory functions without being subjected to regulatory ambiguity. Private operators should have sufficient commercial freedom to invest, innovate and compete, but not so much freedom that market power becomes a substitute for regulation. That equilibrium will not emerge automatically from legislation. It will depend upon institutional discipline.
There is an old lesson in constitutional design that applies equally well to economic regulation: power is most effective when its boundaries are understood. The maritime industry does not need another turf war at the ports. It needs a referee whose jurisdiction is clear, whose decisions are credible and whose intervention makes the game fairer without attempting to play it.
NPERA now has that opportunity. The real test of the 2026 Act will therefore not be how much power Nigeria has given its new economic regulator. It will be whether a regulator understands the far more difficult proposition that knowing where its power ends is part of knowing how to exercise it.
That is how a regulatory agency becomes an institution, how a referee learns when to blow the whistle and, ultimately, how a port becomes an engine of economic value rather than merely a harbour.
- business a.m. commits to publishing a diversity of views, opinions and comments. It, therefore, welcomes your reaction to this and any of our articles via email: comment@businessamlive.com
Modernisation vs cultural surrender: African workplaces and preserving values