SEREC Demands Full Disclosure of Maritime Agencies’ Books, Proposes New Financial Transparency Framework

…Says public money must leave public accountability trail

…Urges NPERA to make financial transparency central to port economic regulation

BY KESIENNA SHEPHERDS

The Sea Empowerment and Research Centre (SEREC) has challenged Nigeria’s maritime public institutions to open up their financial records to greater public scrutiny, declaring that “public money must leave a public accountability trail.”

In a new research and policy position paper titled “Show Us the Books: Financial Transparency, Public Enterprise Accountability and the Ease of Doing Business in Nigeria’s Maritime Ecosystem,” SEREC said the country’s maritime industry was too economically important to operate within a financial accountability environment that the public could only partially see, understand or reconstruct from fragmented sources.

The Centre consequently proposed a Maritime Public-Enterprise Financial Transparency Framework (MPFTF) to integrate revenue, budgeting, procurement, expenditure, projects, assets, borrowing, debt servicing, remittances, audits and economic performance across the maritime ecosystem.

The 22 August 2026 paper, produced by SEREC’s Research and Policy Division, stressed that its position was not an accusation against any particular agency or management, but a governance proposition aimed at strengthening institutional accountability, investor confidence, public enlightenment and the Presidential Ease of Doing Business agenda.

According to the Centre, the fundamental question should not merely be whether public maritime institutions keep accounts, but whether Nigerians, investors, researchers, the media and the National Assembly can readily trace the complete financial journey from public revenue to expenditure, borrowing to debt service, procurement to assets, and expenditure to measurable economic outcomes.

“Revenue, borrowing and expenditure cannot be responsibly evaluated without access to the books,” SEREC Head of Research, Fwrd. Eugene Nweke who signed the position paper, declared.

He argued that where a public institution reports increased revenue, stakeholders should be able to determine how much was collected, the sources of the revenue, what was retained, what was remitted and how the funds were deployed.

Similarly, where a major infrastructure project is undertaken, the public should be able to establish its approved cost, contract value, variations, financing source, amount paid, outstanding liability and economic return.

The Centre also maintained that where public institutions borrow, information on the amount borrowed, lender, interest rate, tenure, purpose, repayment obligations and resulting asset or economic benefit should be accessible to the public, subject to lawful exemptions.

NPA, NIMASA, Others In Focus

SEREC specifically identified major institutions in the maritime and trade facilitation ecosystem, including the Nigerian Ports Authority (NPA), Nigerian Maritime Administration and Safety Agency (NIMASA), Nigerian Ports Economic Regulatory Agency (NPERA), National Inland Waterways Authority (NIWA), Standards Organisation of Nigeria (SON), National Agency for Food and Drug Administration and Control (NAFDAC), Nigeria Customs Service (NCS) and relevant Federal Ministries.

It said the same accountability principle should apply to all public institutions whose decisions, revenues, charges, infrastructure, assets and regulatory activities affect the maritime value chain.

For the NPA, SEREC said stakeholders should be able to obtain a clearer picture of port revenue, remittances, infrastructure expenditure, maintenance costs, personnel and overhead expenditure, major projects, concessions, liabilities, assets created and the economic return on public investment.

On NIMASA, it advocated a shift from conventional institutional reporting towards integrated financial-and-performance reporting that would enable the public to connect money received, money spent, activities undertaken, outputs delivered and outcomes achieved.

It similarly argued that the financial implications of regulatory activities by the Standard Organisation of Nigeria (SON) and National Agency for Food and Drugs  Administration Control (NAFDAC) should be transparent enough to establish the relationship between regulatory charges, regulatory costs, services delivered and economic outcomes.

From Agency Accounting To Maritime Ecosystem Accounting

A major plank of the SEREC position is that financial accountability in the maritime sector should no longer be examined exclusively on an agency-by-agency basis.

The Centre described the fragmentation of maritime public finance as a major structural problem, noting that different institutions maintain separate budgets, revenue streams, charges, accounting systems, procurement processes, projects, assets, audits and reports.

But, according to SEREC, the port user experiences the combined financial effect.

“An importer does not experience NPA cost in isolation. Nor Customs cost in isolation. Nor SON cost in isolation. Nor NAFDAC cost in isolation. Nor terminal cost in isolation,” the Centre stated.

“The trader experiences the total cost of moving cargo through Nigeria.”

The Centre therefore proposed a concept of Maritime Value-Chain Accounting, which would capture government revenue, regulatory charges, port and terminal charges, inspection and certification costs, documentation, security, digital-platform charges, logistics costs and delays.

It described the resulting figure as the “true cost of maritime trade,” arguing that such accounting would directly connect financial transparency with Nigeria’s competitiveness.

NPERA Gets New Regulatory Assignment

SEREC also placed a significant responsibility on the newly established NPERA, urging the emerging port economic regulator to make financial and economic transparency a central component of its regulatory mandate.

Rather than limiting economic regulation to determining what port users should pay, the Centre said NPERA should ask a broader question: what does the port system cost, who receives the money, what service is delivered and what economic value does the expenditure produce?

It recommended that NPERA develop capacity to analyse port revenue, tariffs, concession economics, infrastructure costs, service charges, operating costs, investments, productivity, port-user costs and economic returns.

The Centre further proposed that NPERA establish a National Port Financial Performance Index (NP-FPI) to assess revenue efficiency, cost efficiency, capital expenditure efficiency, procurement efficiency, debt sustainability, asset utilisation, service delivery, tariff/value relationship, audit compliance, project delivery and economic returns.

It also proposed an annual “One Port, One Accountability Statement”, under which major Nigerian ports would publish integrated statements covering vessel calls, cargo throughput, port revenue, regulatory revenue, Customs revenue, terminal charges, concession revenue, infrastructure and maintenance expenditure, dwell time, truck turnaround, cargo clearance time, port productivity, complaints, disputes and other economic indicators.

The objective, SEREC said, would be to connect “port money with port performance.”

Calls for Public Asset And Debt Registers

The Research Centre also called for a Maritime Public Asset Register covering major land, buildings, vessels, vehicles, equipment, ICT systems, infrastructure, concessions, leases and investments controlled by public maritime institutions.

It recommended greater disclosure of public borrowing, including lenders, amounts, currencies, interest rates, tenures, grace periods, repayment schedules, security, purposes, projects financed, financing costs and outstanding balances.

According to SEREC, every major maritime borrowing should pass four tests: necessity, affordability, productivity and transparency.

It described the proposed mechanism as the Maritime Public Borrowing Value Test.

The Centre similarly called for structured financial disclosure around major concessions involving public maritime assets, including concession duration, fees, royalties, minimum guaranteed payments, investment obligations, revenue-sharing arrangements, tariff frameworks, performance benchmarks, penalties and termination or renewal provisions.

Monthly, Quarterly And Annual Disclosures

SEREC recommended a maritime financial disclosure calendar under which revenue collection and major expenditure would be reported monthly; procurement awards as they occur; capital projects, budget performance, borrowing obligations, port economic indicators and unaudited financial performance quarterly; and audited financial statements, asset registers and audit-response reports annually.

It said the system would move Nigeria from retrospective accountability to real-time accountability.

The Centre also proposed a Maritime Public Finance Observatory, involving government, academia, professional bodies, maritime economists, accountants, freight forwarders, shipping practitioners, port users, civil society, research centres and the media.

The Observatory would monitor revenue, expenditure, borrowing, projects, procurement, concessions, remittances, assets, audit findings and economic performance.

Transparency and Ease of Doing Business

SEREC maintained that financial transparency should not be treated merely as an accounting issue, arguing that it has direct implications for the cost and predictability of doing business.

It said investors need reliable information on charges, public asset management, concessions, contracts, liabilities and regulatory decisions, while shipping lines, terminal operators, importers and exporters require predictable costs and regulatory conditions.

“A maritime economy cannot be genuinely business-friendly if businesses can readily see the charges they must pay but cannot readily understand the financial rationale, deployment and performance of the public institutions receiving those charges,” the Centre stated.

It also argued that greater access to primary financial records would strengthen journalism and research by reducing dependence on anonymous sources, leaked documents, isolated figures, speculation and institutional claims.

Transparency As Protection For Public Managers

Interestingly, SEREC said financial transparency should not necessarily be viewed as an instrument for attacking public officials.

Rather, it argued that transparent records could protect competent managers against unfounded allegations.

“A competent management team can point to approved budgets, audited accounts, procurement records, project reports, debt schedules and performance indicators,” it said.

“The cleanest defence available to a public institution is a transparent and verifiable record of its financial conduct. The Centre consequently proposed a governance shift from “Trust us” to “Verify us.”

What Should Be Disclosed?

Among information it believes should ordinarily be accessible, SEREC listed annual budgets, audited accounts, revenue and expenditure totals, major projects, contract awards and values, major variations, borrowing arrangements, debt balances, public assets, concession financial terms, remittances, audit findings, management responses and project completion reports.

It nevertheless acknowledged that national security, active investigations, personal information, cybersecurity, legitimate trade secrets and sensitive maritime-security operations may require protection.

But such confidentiality, it insisted, must be specific, lawful, proportionate, justified and reviewable, rather than a blanket institutional default.

Customs Should Not Be Sole Accountability Reference

SEREC also cautioned against making Customs the only financial accountability reference point within the maritime sector simply because its revenue collections are highly visible.

The cargo journey, it noted, involves NPA, NIMASA, NPERA, Customs, SON, NAFDAC, terminal operators, shipping lines and other public and private service providers.

“Financial accountability must follow the cargo value chain rather than stop at the institution that collects the most visible revenue,” it declared.

The Centre further proposed an annual Port Revenue-to-Cost Impact Assessment to measure regulatory cost per container, port cost per TEU, cost per vessel call and tonne, documentation and inspection costs, delay costs and aggregate public- and private-sector port charges.

‘Revenue growth is not automatically productivity’

SEREC warned public institutions against treating revenue growth as an automatic measure of institutional success.

Revenue, it said, could increase because of improved efficiency, increased cargo volumes, tariff increases, introduction of new charges, penalties, inflation or expanded regulatory coverage.

Consequently, it argued that revenue growth must always be evaluated against cost growth, service improvement and economic productivity.

“The correct question is not merely, ‘How much did the agency collect?’ It is: ‘How much economic value did the agency create relative to the public resources it consumed?’” it stated.

In its final position, SEREC said Nigeria’s maritime transformation could not be measured solely by infrastructure constructed, vessels acquired, revenue collected, projects commissioned or digital platforms launched.

The deeper question, according to the Centre, is how efficiently Nigeria converts maritime public resources into maritime economic productivity.

It therefore called for the enforcement, modernisation, integration, digitisation and standardisation of the country’s existing public-finance accountability architecture.

Summing up its position, SEREC said “Public Money + Public Power + Public Assets = Public Accountability.

“Show us what was collected, what was budgeted, what was borrowed, what was procured, what was spent, what was built, what was remitted, what remains outstanding, what was audited, what was corrected and what economic value was ultimately created.”

The Centre stressed that its “Show Us the Books” doctrine was neither anti-government nor anti-business, but a call for stronger institutional credibility, investment confidence, prudence and public accountability.