At what point does “creative tension” turn into something more destructive and sinister? This is a question that the Hon Minister for Transport, Rotimi Amaechi should ask himself. The management of the Nigerian Ports Authority (NPA) should ask themselves similar question. And they may be getting perilously close to stepping over the line where legitimate argument ends and direct challenge to the minister’s reputation begins for disregarding national morality. This is over role of the Ocean Marine Solutions Limited rumblings.
Three things guide the policy operation and investment drive of any progress-seeking capitalist economy. These are capitalist institutions, regulators and rule of law to guarantee safety of investments. The palaver being made by the minister and the Nigerian Ports Authority (NPA) with Ocean Marine Solutions Limited over the Secured Anchorage Area (SAA) is a direct kick on this basic principle of investment. This action has made a lot of maritime stakeholders, investors and observers to voice out serious concerns that this kind of action has the implication of discouraging investors from investing their money in Nigeria. It also has the implication of scaring away investors from Nigeria, thereby evacuating the country of investments.
The gist of the matter is that the NPA has concluded moves to push out Ocean Marine Solutions Limited from the Secured Anchorage Area (SAA) of Lagos port and replace it with a foreign company called HLSI Security Systems at a cost of $195million to the Federal government. This surprises industry stakeholders and analysts alike. And angry questions are being asked. Why paying $195 million to a foreign company for what Ocean Marine has been doing at no cost to government?
And this has set people thinking that apart from the implication of business evacuation, there also seems a grand agenda of opening Nigeria up for foreign take-over of the country. This is coming at a time when the noise generated by the controversial Chinese loan entered into by the ministry of transport is yet to die down. And if this proposed plan with HLSI goes ahead, Nigeria may lose $195million, which is the value of the contract proposed for an Israeli-owned company, HLSI Security Systems and Technologies, Limited.
“Our very own country men and women are betraying us and selling our country to foreign maggots. And those with corrupted ego are putting their own self interests ahead of the nation’s and our collective interests.” Said Kunle Odetoyinbo, a Lagos public affairs analyst.
It is gathered that despite the fact that the SAA had been running successfully under OMSL for years at no cost to the Federal Government, some highly placed officials in government, for selfish reasons, are desperately rocking the boat. In fact, the champions of the agenda of stopping OMSL from operating the SAA are so determined that they resorted to blackmail while spewing out pathetic and spurious allegations against the operators of the SAA.
The OMSL mandate to secure in-coming ships came in 2012. And ever since that intervention of OMSL insecurity not only reduced but has been wiped out, creating a safe haven for foreign and local vessels to berth and operate.
In October that year, the Navy seized a foreign-flagged ship carrying arms and ammunition on the nation’s territorial waters. At that time, insecurity in the maritime domain was rising. The insecurity prompted a series of intense talk among relevant government agencies such as the Nigerian Ports Authority (NPA), the Nigerian Maritime Administration and Safety Agency (NIMASA) and the Nigerian Navy (NA) on how to protect ships and the environment.
The OMSL argued that the insecurity had compelled foreign vessels seeking to berth in Lagos to stay outside Nigerian territorial waters up to a distance of 200 nautical miles where they believe pirates would not reach them or prefer to come into the country with foreign mercenaries for their safety. By so doing, Nigeria was losing businesses and huge revenue to neighbouring countries such as Benin, Togo and Ghana as foreign vessels found comfort in ports in those areas. Consequently, the OMSL was given the mandate to provide security for incoming ships through the SAA.
The intervention of OMSL in 2012 was, however, not automatic. It followed due process. That is why a lot of people are worried about the rumored action of NPA and he Ministry of Transport. According to a source “In the first place, Ocean Marine pedigree as a result of successes recorded while being engaged by reputable firms caused the Nigerian Navy to introduce the company to NPA and NIMASA. The OMSL was subsequently invited to series of strategic meetings with stakeholders on how to provide security on the harbour approaches, and a deal was officially struck.
The intervention of OMSL was, however, not automatic. It followed due process. “The company went out of its way to provide the needed services by undertaking significant investment in the acquisition of assets and logistics backup required by the Navy to offer all-round patrol services.”
Surprisingly, in November 7, 2019, the battle over the control of the SAA took a different tuen when a motion was raised at the Senate following an alarming letter by the Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA) on alleged illegal security activities perpetrated by OMSL at the SAA, Lagos port. But this is a false, according to the company.
With a newspaper report. that followed the allegation by the NPA, “the Senate then detailed a 44-man committee, including three members from the secretariats, joint committee, comprising Navy, Marine Transport and Finance to investigate the matter. Their terms of reference were to determine the legality of the operations, its revenue, security implications and the legality of the entire chain of the operation.
“It also mandated the joint committee to investigate the lingering quarrel among the agencies, with a view to resolving the security impasse it will bring to the nation as well as the legality of OMSL and its operations.
“The Senate, considering the importance of the matter allowed four weeks for the conclusion of investigation and reports, as well as approved three independent chairmen, to forestall manipulations of any kind. The chairmen were Senators George Sekibo, Mohammed Danjuma Goje and Senator Solomon Adeola Olamilekan.”
During the hearing, the chairman of OMSL, Capt. Hosa Okunbo, gave an insight into the history of SAA and its modus operandi. “OMSL started in 2007 at the height of militancy where this country was producing less than 300,000 barrels a day. The late Admiral Augustus Aikhomu, who was the first Chairman of OMSL, and who had been a one- time Chief of Staff, was the one who came up with this idea.
“He had referred to a company in London, that provides platforms to the Navy to protect the fisheries industry in the North Sea, and also referred to Indian Ocean where private companies would procure platforms to the Indian Navy to protect the oil and gas industry. At this time, it was just an intervention and we wrote to the Navy in 2007.
“We started this business with just three vessels because it was pertinent to open risk tracks, which had shut down with production of 70,000 barrels per day. There were bullet holes on Shell EA Field; Addax was attacked on a daily basis, and Shell was going to close the whole of Eastern production because of hoodlums in Bonny. There were numerous challenges and we came in. We intervened, in national interest.
“I want to see one Nigerian businessman, who would want to procure a vessel of over three, four million dollars, sometimes up to six million dollars and hand it over to the Navy completely, without insurance, to defend this country. Nobody was ready. We took the risk, and the 70,000 barrels were restored.
“We stood in the gap between the Navy to carry out its statutory responsibilities, and the oil companies, who were ready to pay for our services. If we were to pay the Navy, then prices would have been crazy. We took that responsibility, sat with the oil companies, and everything was benchmarked in line with industry practices.
“Before OMSL strategy, Navy men were put on vessels; they were put on tug boats and houseboats and when pirates came, they were killed. They killed a lot of Navy men, and I am surprised why the Navy is not talking. Your men were killed in this country until we came on board to find the solution. Many operations were then restored; Shell EA production of 200,000 barrels per day was restored; Addax too ran to us, Bonny too restored. That was how we started borrowing money to buy vessels. And that is how we were able to build this capacity we are talking about today.
“At the advent of amnesty, all the conditions the Navy presented to us, we met in 2007, leaving none out. If you remember, there was a time all shipping activities were relocated to the West African coasts. If you want to clear your goods, you go to Lome, Cotonou and Accra. There was high piracy rate in Lagos.
“We were invited by the Navy in line with our success in the past and because of our capacity, to come and help; that was how we came. They asked us to provide this platform for the Navy. It is just like you buying a bullion van for the police to protect the cash that banks carry. That’s the simple thing we are talking about.
“We provided the platform and maintained it at our own cost; but what happened? We wanted to stop in the first year because we were losing so much money. We went to Norway, London, Singapore, South Africa at our own cost to meet with ship owners to tell them, listen you are bringing mercenaries to our shores costing you $22,500 per day at $7,500 per mercenary, when our company can give an equivalent service at lesser cost, more of a stipend for their vessels.
They agreed that it was a win-win situation. That is how SAA started. And if we were to pay money to NPA or Navy, the cost probably will be higher because we did a proposal to Navy and they gave us the go-ahead with a caveat that as long as we don’t come back to the government for anything, and that was how we embarked on this business.
“At no time, having been operating this service for six years and procuring this equipment, did NPA call us for collaboration or to say you are making so much money here, let us rent your vessels, don’t charge any fees; we would have agreed. There was no discussion whatsoever. The only thing we saw were some stories on the pages of newspapers. And the most painful of everything was derogating my integrity and image. That is what is bothering me, not the business.
“I am not running this business because of money. I have served this country meritoriously with honesty, with my integrity intact. At the moment, I have 50 vessels with the Navy that could go to war for this country without recourse to OMSL. They don’t need to contact us before they go to war. That is the extent of our commitment to national development. Our records are there in Nigeria National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC); our records are there in IOCs and others.
“My grouse about this whole matter is my integrity that has been tampered with. NPA never called us for a meeting; NPA never contacted us to inform us we are terminated.
“And the Navy, it’s very obvious that you were aware that they wanted to dismantle SAA. Did you call us at any time to tell OMS that this is the plan of NPA? And we have an MoU with you on which we are operating. So, we will stand in the gap for you and this country and you treat us like nobody even with all these investments. The issue is not money, but my integrity. I have over 50 vessels with you and with all my investments with you then you throw me out of the window like that and derogate my character. That is unacceptable.”
The committee also took presentations from nine critical stakeholders, who stated their opinions or positions on the matter. The respondents included Federal Ministry of Transportation, Nigerian Ports Authority, the Nigerian Maritime Administration and Safety Agency (NIMASA), the Nigerian Navy, Ocean Marine Solutions Limited (OMSL), Nigerian Shippers Council (NSC), National Association of Government Approved Freight Forwarders (NAGAFF), Ship Owners Association of Nigeria (SOAN) and Marine Section of the Nigerian Police.
The majority of these submitted that the stoppage of the SAA operated by OMSL without provision of an immediate alternative could lead to security lapse and return the Lagos Anchorage approach to security dangers as experienced in 2012 and 2013.
The Managing Director of OMSL, Rear Admiral Aminu Oyone Ikioda (retd), submitted thus: “That the company has provided various forms of security services to international oil companies (IOCs) operating in the country particularly at the height of militant attacks in 2007.
“That the intervention of the company led to the continuous production of oil and aided in combating the effect of the drastic drop in national oil production and revenue accruing to both government and IOCs.
“That on the basis of the publication of the maritime notices, OMSL was encouraged to develop and submit a business plan to support the SAA operations which would guarantee a return on investment at no cost to the government.
“That upon receiving the approval of the Nigerian Navy, OMSL proceeded to undertake significant in the acquisition of assets and logistics backups required by the Nigerian Navy to offer dedicated 24/7/365 security patrol services demanded by some of the vessels that desire extra protection while waiting offshore Lagos for berth allocation of conducting STS transfer operations.
“That the services of the SAA facility was embraced and accepted by foreign vessels owners putting into consideration the safety, security and environmental protection that would be rendered to them, and were ready to pay for such.
In its presentation, the Ship Owners Association of Nigeria (SOAN) strongly recommended that the status quo be maintained in terms of the SAA arrangement.It said: “The SAA facility had helped in increasing the presence of the Nigerian Navy at the sea and serves as a deterrence to pirates and other criminals in the sea
“That the SAA is operated by the Nigerian Navy that is saddled with the responsibility of protecting the Nigerian waterways and as such will not have any negative security implication, and that SAA operation has drastically helped to reduce freight cost and other associated charges while also reducing the waiting time of vessels.”
According to the ship owners, any attempt to stop the SAA facility could render Nigerian ports unattractive to shippers because ships would be prone to attacks. They prayed that the arrangement should not be tampered with.
National Association of Government Approved Freight Forwarders (NAGAFF) lauded the establishment of the SAA, as its operation is at no cost to government but users of the platform.
Consider what the president of NAGAFF, Chief Increase Uche, said: “That the amount paid by ship/vessel owners for the services rendered at the SAA is so insignificant and cannot add any reasonable cost on cargos compared to cost of ransom, damage, destruction or loss of cargo through sea robbery, piracy and kidnapping.”
The Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA), represented by its Managing Director, Hadiza Bala-Usman, remarked: The Ministry of Transport noted in its presentation by the Minister of State, Sen. Gbemisola Ruqayyat Saraki, that it was written to on October 16, 2019, to intervene in respect of a Marine Notice published by NPA about the stoppage of the SAA without putting into consideration the huge investment made in the SAA and successes recorded so far. It told the committee that based on that letter and the one written by the NPA to the Navy to stop the SAA, it called for a meeting of stakeholders on December 9, 2019 “to deliberate holistically and take appropriate action, the outcome and resolution has not been made public.
It, however, noted: “That the ministry agrees with the fact that the Marine notice issued by NPA for the stoppage of SAA operation by OMSL was hasty as there was the need to interact with all stakeholders to review the situation before issuing such proclamation.”
The Marine Section of the Nigerian Police also pointed out at the hearing that its agency sent notices to mariners informing them of the availability of the SAA. Speaking through the Force Marine Officer, CSP Benjamin Ogungbure, the section noted that “OMSL through the SAA had provided security platform for ships berthing at offshore to the Lagos ports to utilise but the management of NPA are not fully in support of the operation and that the SAA is situated 10 nautical miles away from the Fairway Bouy, which is outside the jurisdiction of the NPA.”
The beneficiary company, HSLI International, is incorporated under the laws of Seychelles with a registered office in Cyprus. Its local subsidiary, HSLI Systems and technologies, is located in Wuse II, Abuja and represented by Mr. Pinhas Moria and Mr Oren Chaluzi, both said to be Israelis. was gathered.
HSLI is to establish an integrated National Coastal Surveillance and Waterways Protection solutions.
According to the Ministry of Transportation, its reason for embarking on a change was “to increase its monitoring and compliance enforcement within Nigeria’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EPZ) due to illegal activities that have increased and intensified in the Gulf of Guinea in recent time.
The contract sum for this project shall be the sum of $195,300million equivalent to N59, 839, 920billion, while 10% of the sum $19,530,000 will be for management training, it was gathered.
The inevitable questions are, what is the essence of bringing in HSLI to do a job that had been efficiently done at no cost to the government by a Nigerian outfit company? And even if there was an area of dispute between the ministry and OMSL, why didn’t the former seek an amicable settlement rather than bringing in a foreign outfit in haste? Why was the capability of OMSL not considered, having already deployed 50 vessels and invested heavily in building capacity, while HSLI is proposing to purchase two vessels?
There is certainly much more to this transaction than meets the ordinary eye.is certainly much more to this transaction than meets the ordinary eye.
Add a Comment