CVFF: A Tale of Two Truths in Institutional Dissonance

PINNACLE TIME EDITORIAL COMMENTARY

The unfolding disagreement between the incumbent Director-General of the Nigerian Maritime Administration and Safety Agency (NIMASA), Dr Dayo Mobereola, and one of his predecessors, Mr Temisan Omatseye, over the currency status of the Cabotage Vessel Financing Fund (CVFF) has opened an important window into the management of one of Nigeria’s most anticipated maritime development financing instruments.

What initially appeared to be an allegation that the dollar component of the CVFF had been converted into naira, yesterday, developed into a public disagreement over historical financial management practices, official directives and the present custody of the Fund.

In a press statement dated November 1, 2026, NIMASA, through its Director-General, firmly rejected reports suggesting that the dollar-denominated component of the CVFF had been converted into naira under the present management.

Mobereola explained that the Fund’s revenue streams are denominated in different currencies, with contributions received in United States dollars retained in dollars with the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), while naira contributions remain in the local currency.

According to him, there has been no conversion of the dollar component of the Fund into naira. The Agency consequently urged maritime stakeholders and members of the public to disregard reports suggesting otherwise.

However, Omatseye, who served as NIMASA Director-General between 2009 and December 2010, unfazed, equally stood by his earlier account that dollar-denominated CVFF collections were converted into naira during his administration.

He explained that the conversion followed a directive from the Office of the Accountant-General of the Federation (AGF), reportedly communicated through an official memorandum directing the conversion of foreign-denominated internally generated revenue, including the three per cent surcharge and the CVFF, into naira for placement in fixed deposits.

Omatseye further explained that the decision was influenced by prevailing interest-rate differentials, with dollar deposits reportedly attracting between one and two per cent, compared with naira deposits offering upwards of 15 per cent at the time.

He maintained that the practice continued until his departure from office on December 13, 2010.

More significantly, he disclosed that NIMASA had approximately N52 billion in fixed deposits when he left office, comprising both the CVFF and the Maritime Fund.

He was, however, careful to distinguish the historical practice under his administration from the present arrangements, acknowledging that NIMASA was better positioned to explain how the Fund had been managed following the introduction of the Treasury Single Account.

This distinction deserves particular attention. The two statements, although apparently contradictory, address different periods of NIMASA’s institutional history. Omatseye is explaining what happened during his tenure, while Mobereola is offering an assurance about the present status of the Fund.

Consequently, the former DG’s account cannot automatically be interpreted as evidence that the current management has converted the dollar component of the CVFF. Neither should the present management’s denial be construed as a repudiation of the historical account offered by its predecessor.

What remains unanswered, however, is the documentary evidence behind both positions. If the conversion during Omatseye’s tenure was undertaken pursuant to an official directive from the Accountant-General’s office, the relevant memorandum, the applicable accounting records and the corresponding bank transactions should provide an authoritative historical reference.

Similarly, if the present management maintains that dollar contributions are retained in dollars with the CBN, the corresponding account statements, reconciliation records and audited financial disclosures should establish the position beyond any iota of doubt and public controversy.

The public should not be expected to choose between two competing official narratives when the relevant financial records ought to provide the definitive answers.

This is particularly important because the CVFF is not an ordinary government revenue account. It is a statutory financing instrument established under the Coastal and Inland Shipping (Cabotage) Act to support indigenous shipowners in acquiring vessels and strengthening local shipping capacity.

For years, Nigerian shipowners have looked towards the Fund as a potential lifeline against the capital-intensive nature of vessel acquisition, high financing costs and the competitive disadvantages confronting indigenous operators.

The long delay in actual disbursement has consequently made the management, preservation and transparency of the Fund matters of considerable public interest.

NIMASA has now indicated that applications have been received from eligible beneficiaries, with some applicants undergoing documentation processes with their preferred Primary Lending Institutions (PLIs). The Agency also expressed optimism that disbursement would commence shortly.

This is encouraging, particularly in view of the commitment of the Minister of Marine and Blue Economy, Adegboyega Oyetola, to ensuring that the Fund eventually fulfils its statutory purpose.

But the anticipated disbursement should not overshadow the need for a comprehensive account of the Fund’s financial history.

How much has accrued to the CVFF since its establishment? How much was collected in dollars and how much in naira? What became of the historical conversions, if any? What are the balances currently held under the TSA arrangements? What returns have accrued to the Fund over the years, and what has been the impact of inflation and currency depreciation on its purchasing power?

Indeed, answers to questions that has forever been evaded by successive NIMASA administration about how much interests have accrued to the Fund held in trust by designated commercial banks, should be provided now.

It is time Nigerians and stakeholders get to know the actual status of the Fund in all its ramifications. These are legitimate questions, not attempts to undermine the credibility of the Agency or its leadership; the supervisory ministry and or, the presidency.

Indeed, the public’s right to accurate official information becomes even more compelling when government institutions issue statements that appear to contradict the accounts of their former chief executives.

There is also a larger institutional lesson here. Public financial management should not depend on the personal recollections of serving or former officials. It must be anchored on accessible records, transparent accounting procedures and verifiable disclosures capable of surviving changes in leadership.

The CVFF deserves no less. At this point, neither a political exchange nor competing press statements will resolve the matter. What is required is a documentary reconciliation that clearly separates the historical management of the Fund from its present financial position.

Nigeria’s indigenous shipping industry has waited long enough for the CVFF to move from policy promises and administrative processes to actual vessel acquisition and measurable economic benefits.

The least the industry and the Nigerian public deserve is an unambiguous account of where the money is, how it has been managed and when qualified beneficiaries can realistically expect access to it.

In the final analysis, the credibility of NIMASA will not be established merely by dismissing an allegation, just as Omatseye’s historical account will not be conclusively established merely by insisting that he stands by his statement.

The records must speak. And until they do, the CVFF will remain caught between two official truths awaiting documentary reconciliation.