Olisa Agbakoba (SAN) is a former president of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA). In this interview, he speaks on the controversy over the Nigerian Coast Guard Bill before the Senate, among other issues ANAYO EZUGWU Writes
What is your reaction to the rejection of the Nigerian Coast Guard Bill before the Senate in some quarters, especially among stakeholders in the maritime sector?
My first point is that the issue of a coast guard is an extremely old one in Nigeria. I’ve been in the industry for 44 years and I have personally pushed for a coast guard to patrol our maritime waters. We need that sort of protection. Maritime security is such a vital aspect of any country that says it is a coastal nation.
Nigeria is a coastal nation but what has happened is that we’ve had a series of ad hoc arrangements, going back to the National Maritime Coordinating Committee in the 80s, and then to the Presidential Task Force on Security.
The present arrangement, which the Nigerian Maritime Administration and Safety Agency (NIMASA) is pushing is that the agency in collaboration with the navy, provides maritime security for our waters, particularly issues around crude oil theft.
However, my view is that a coast guard is an institutional requirement in the maritime sector. It’s a very important point. A coast guard needs to be a freestanding organisation. It stands on its own. Its core function is law enforcement of the maritime waters.
The problem with the navy is that it is a fighting force. The coast guard is not a fighting force even though I must admit that there’s a lot of naval presence in the constitution of a coast guard. I’ve looked at six different countries, South Africa, the UK, the US, Canada and Australia. All of them, just to point out what happened in the US.
The US Coast Guard Service was under the control of the Department of Transportation until 9-11, when it was transferred to the Department of Homeland Security, not the navy, not the defence.
The Coast Guard Service in the UK is an executive agency of the Department of Transportation. And this is very reasonable because the coast guard is essentially a law enforcement agency. It’s not a fighting force.
The navy is a fighting force. But what then happens would be, for instance, the President of America or the Defence Secretary, is required during war, to transfer the coast guard for military service. But essentially what the coast guard does is protect our maritime waters.
It protects our aquatic. It protects our natural resources around Nigeria, inland waterways, and the borders. And in this way, it brings into Nigeria a lot of revenue. The navy’s role as a coast guard service is peculiar to the issues of the Niger Delta. That’s why they came in. So, you have the platform provided by the navy and the funding from NIMASA. But that’s not what we want.
We want to have a coast guard service that is predicated on the requirements of the International Maritime Organisation, which says the core mandate of any coast guard must be something that stands alone. The navy has such different functions. I don’t see how it is best suited to perform the functions of the coast guard that is proposed.
Yes, I can see that the coast guard would have a role to play. That is why when you compose the coast guard service, the navy has a role to play. But it’s essentially a civilian law enforcement agency. Its core function is the implementation of maritime regulations, and a number of them are listed by the International Maritime Organisation.
So I would push for a coast guard. There’s no question that the coast guard with a core mandate of maritime security is required. I don’t think there’s a debate.
There can be a debate around structure. Who will be part of it? Will the navy play a role? Will NIMASA play a role? But the coast guard needs to be established. It’s far too long in Nigeria without the coast guard, and the problem has been that we’ve lost a lot of revenue.
The reason why Nigeria has done very badly on the IMO rankings is because we don’t have vital institutions like maritime security and we’re always out of the white list
As we’re talking about functionality and the different roles one of the points of contention is the fact that there hasn’t been a comprehensive analysis that can truly differentiate the different roles that would be played by the coast guard and the navy. What’s your take on that position?
That would be a very ill-informed view. Anyone who understands what the coast guard is, I mean, even here, I have at least 10 examples of coast guard services around the world.
A coast guard service, let me be very clear, is a civilian law enforcement agency that implements maritime regulations.
A naval force is a fighting force. It is not a civilian force, completely different services. There’s no doubt that in certain circumstances, a naval force might be required to assist the coast guard.
In the United States of America, where they have a coast guard, it is under civilian control and there is a provision that the coast guard may be deployed for military services if the defence secretary makes such a prescription.
The same provisions apply in the United Kingdom, where the coast guard is an executive agency of the Department of Transportation, with the possibility of being transferred, if required, to military duties.
So, essentially, the coast guard is like a military police in the waters. That’s all it is. So, you have the Merchant Shipping Act, setting out diverse stipulations for what the coast guard would do.
You have the Cabotage Act; you have all sorts of legislation. But there is no one enforcing this legislation today. That’s not the function of the navy to enforce the Cabotage Act. It is not the function of the navy to enforce the Merchant Shipping Act, and so on.
The bill is saying that the proposed coast guard will be in the navy; is it not just multiplicity and creating another arm within another arm?
I agree with you and let’s keep two things separate. The first point I was making is that we need an institutional process for the coast guard. We don’t have it in Nigeria. So, I think that is a given. We need an institutional process. So, I like to call it the coast g uard because that is what the IMO stipulates in its mandate.
The reason why Nigeria has done very badly on the IMO rankings is because we don’t have vital institutions like maritime security and we’re always out of the white list.
So, there is nothing wrong with having a coast guard in principle. The issue really that you are addressing is, would there not be a duplication, a multiplicity of functions? That is the second issue. That is an issue of if we agree there should be a coast guard, what would be the structure?
And I entirely agree with you that when you talk about structure, the navy certainly will have a role, which is why I referred you to the practice in the US where the Department of Homeland Security can transfer, in times of war, the coast guard to the Department of Defence.
In the UK, the same thing happens. But the bulk of the functions of the coast guard is essentially civil law enforcement. And therefore, the weight of work that the coast guard would do will be to simply implement maritime regulations to which the army or the navy is not suited. That does not exclude the participation of the navy.
So, what I would have expected at the public hearing is to say, there’s no difficulty that a maritime security agency is required.
The question now is, how do we ensure, exactly what you said about the Oronsaye report, how do we ensure that the constitution of the coast guard does not duplicate what we already have?
But the Establishment Act of the Navy already covers police function, military function, intelligence function, and all of that, and the fact that this should not have come as a private member bill. Do you think these points are right or wrong?
Whether it comes as a private member bill or an executive bill is not the issue. The issue is: Is the coast guard an important national institution? I think it is. Should a coast guard service stand-alone, a freestanding institution? I think it ought to stand alone. Should the navy be part of the composition of the coast guard?
That is open to debate. But the question is: Should we have a coast guard service? I think we should have a coast guard service.
Not only is it a requirement of the United Nations specialised agency on maritime, the International Maritime Organisation, it is the requirement that a country must have a Maritime Safety Agency and a Maritime Security Agency, so the coast guard fulfills that function. The navy in America is the largest in the world.
Why do they have a coast guard? Why is the coast guard not part of the navy? The United Kingdom also has a huge navy. Why is the coast guard different from the navy in the UK? So, there’s a reason. The coast guard is not a fighting force. It is a law enforcement agency.
It enforces maritime regulations. We have the Carbotage Act, which is not working because we don’t have an institution to deal with it. We have over 25,000 foreign vessels in our waters. If the navy was so effective, what is it doing? So, a coast guard is designated to deal with the protection of our maritime laws. A navy is a fighting force and they are two different things
