A Federal High Court sitting in Lagos has ruled that the Minister of Transportation and the Council for the Regulation of Freight Forwarding in Nigeria (CRFFN) have no legal authority to regulate the activities of Licensed Customs Agents (LCA). The court also declared that the Minister and the CRFFN cannot demand any form of fee, clearance, or licensing conditions from customs agents for them to operate in Nigerian ports or renew their licenses under the Customs Act.
The judgment was delivered by Justice Daniel Osiagor in suit number FHC/CS/765/2018, filed by the National Council of Managing Directors of Licensed Customs Agents (NCMDLCA) against the Minister of Transportation, the Nigerian Ports Authority (NPA), and the CRFFN as defendants. The suit was filed following a directive published on August 1, 2017, by the Minister of Transportation, which sought to place the regulation of customs agents under the control of the Ministry and CRFFN.
Justice Osiagor, in his ruling, declared that the regulation of Licensed Customs Agents is solely governed by the Customs and Excise Management Act (CEMA), which provides a comprehensive legal framework for licensing and supervising customs operations in Nigeria. He stated that only the Minister of Finance, acting through the Nigeria Customs Service (NCS), is empowered by law to regulate the activities of customs agents.
According to the judgment, “The Minister of Transportation is not recognized under the Customs Act as having any supervisory or regulatory role over Licensed Customs Agents. The CRFFN, under section 4 of its establishing Act, is only empowered to determine qualifications, register freight forwarders, and set practice standards for freight forwarding. Licensed Customs Agents, however, are distinct from freight forwarders.”
The court further emphasized that the CRFFN, established under the CRFFN Act of 2007, operates a separate regulatory framework that does not cover the operations of Licensed Customs Agents, whose regulatory oversight falls under the Customs Act exclusively.
At a press briefing in Lagos, the President of NCMDLCA, Lucky Amiwero, described the court’s decision as a long-awaited victory for customs agents. He stressed that the judgment clarified the distinction between customs agents and freight forwarders, reaffirming that customs agents are licensed under a different legal framework.
Amiwero said, “We are not freight forwarders. We are licensed under a different law. This judgment affirms that distinction, and we are glad that the court has finally provided clarity on this matter. The Ministry of Transportation and the CRFFN have no business regulating our activities. Our licensing, operations, and supervision are strictly under the Nigeria Customs Service as provided by law.”
However, in response to the court’s decision, the Registrar of CRFFN, Kingsley Igwe, maintained that the ruling does not stop the Council from collecting the Practitioners Operating Fee (POF) from customs agents. Igwe stated that the CRFFN remains the legally empowered authority to regulate freight forwarding activities in Nigeria under the CRFFN Act No. 16 of 2007.
He said, “While we respect the court’s decision, it is important to note that CRFFN remains the body empowered by law to regulate freight forwarding in Nigeria. The collection of POF is part of our regulatory mandate, and that will continue. The judgment does not stop the Council from performing its duties as prescribed by the law.”
The judgment has reignited the debate within the maritime and port sectors over the regulatory boundaries between the Customs Service, the Ministry of Transportation, and the CRFFN. Licensed Customs Agents have long argued that their operations fall strictly within the purview of the Customs Act and should not be subjected to dual regulation by the CRFFN or any other body under the Ministry of Transportation.
With this ruling, industry stakeholders anticipate further clarifications on regulatory oversight within the ports, particularly in ensuring that the roles of customs agents and freight forwarders remain distinct and properly supervised according to the appropriate laws.
