ANLCA Unity Project: Beyond Convenient Narratives and Selective History

BY EGUONO ODJEGBA

The ongoing efforts to restore institutional stability, internal democracy and lasting unity within the Association of Nigerian Licensed Customs Agents (ANLCA) deserve to be assessed against the full weight of historical circumstances, constitutional considerations and the actual steps taken by its present national leadership, rather than through selective narratives that risk misrepresenting the realities of the association’s internal affairs.

Since assuming office, the Sir Emenike Nwokeoji-led National Executive Committee has had to contend with institutional disagreements and leadership disputes that predated its emergence. Among these is the protracted leadership crisis at the Murtala Muhammed International Airport (MMIA) Chapter, a dispute inherited from the previous administration and one whose roots cannot reasonably be attributed to the current national leadership.

It is therefore important to distinguish between inheriting a crisis and deliberately perpetuating one. The two are not synonymous, and any meaningful assessment of the present administration’s performance must recognise this fundamental distinction.

Rather than abandon the Murtala Mohammed International Airport (MMIA) Chapter to competing interests or impose an arbitrary settlement, the Nwokeoji-led leadership has repeatedly taken steps towards resolving the disagreement through lawful, legitimate and constitutionally defensible channels, including political engagement, internal democratic processes and other recognised mechanisms of reconciliation.

These efforts reflect an understanding that the restoration of peace in a professional association cannot be achieved by merely declaring one faction victorious or yielding to the loudest voices. Sustainable reconciliation requires patience, institutional discipline, fairness and, above all, the willingness of all parties to subordinate personal interests to the collective good.

Unfortunately, the continued existence of disagreements at MMIA has often been presented as though it were sufficient evidence of the failure of the national leadership’s entire unity project. Such a conclusion is neither balanced nor supported by the full circumstances surrounding the dispute.

Indeed, it is difficult to ignore the contradiction in which some of the loudest advocates of reconciliation appear unwilling to make the necessary compromises that genuine reconciliation demands. Peace cannot be a one-sided responsibility, nor can an association achieve lasting unity where certain interests appear more invested in sustaining grievances than in exploring available avenues for settlement.

The national leadership cannot reasonably be expected to manufacture consensus where some of the principal actors remain unwilling to embrace compromise or respect legitimate institutional processes.

This is not to suggest that disagreements should be suppressed or that members should surrender their legitimate rights to question leadership decisions. Rather, it reinforces the principle that disagreements must be addressed within the framework of the association’s constitution, established procedures and applicable laws, rather than through sustained agitation, competing claims and attempts to delegitimize institutional authority.

On the Abuja Airport Chapter, the situation equally requires a more factual understanding than the simplistic description of an unresolved election stalemate. The central issue is not merely the absence of a concluded electoral process, but the question of eligibility and legitimate membership within the association.

The individual laying claim to victory in the disputed Abuja leadership contest is, according to the position of the national leadership, not a recognized member of ANLCA.

His membership credentials have been challenged on the grounds that his entry into the association followed his expulsion from the Council of Managing Directors of Nigeria Licensed Customs Agents, raising fundamental questions about the legitimacy of his participation in ANLCA’s internal electoral process.

This is a critical distinction that cannot be glossed over in any objective discussion of the Abuja situation. An association’s electoral democracy is not simply about conducting elections or recognizing whoever declares himself victorious. It is equally about ensuring that candidates satisfy established membership requirements and that the electoral process is conducted within the boundaries of the association’s governing rules.

Consequently, the question of who is qualified to participate in or contest an election cannot be separated from the broader question of institutional integrity.

It would therefore be misleading to portray the Abuja situation merely as another demonstration of administrative indecision without examining the substantive membership and eligibility questions surrounding the disputed claim.

More fundamentally, the suggestion that the isolated MMIA dispute has undermined ANLCA’s overall unity and preservation project represents an unnecessarily sweeping interpretation of the association’s internal realities.

ANLCA is a national professional association with multiple chapters, diverse interests and a history of institutional disagreements. Its unity cannot fairly be measured exclusively by the persistence of one chapter’s leadership dispute, particularly when the national leadership has continued to pursue avenues for resolution.

The responsibility for preserving the association belongs to every member, irrespective of political affiliation, chapter interest or personal ambition. National leadership provides direction, establishes institutional frameworks and facilitates reconciliation, but members and their respective interest groups must also demonstrate the willingness to make peace possible.

It is therefore counterproductive for individuals who are themselves participants in unresolved disagreements to appropriate the language of collective grievance and present their personal or factional positions as the consensus of the wider membership.

Disagreement is not necessarily disunity, just as the existence of competing interests does not automatically translate into institutional failure. What matters is whether the association retains the capacity to manage such differences through legitimate structures without sacrificing its constitutional integrity.

Indeed, allowing unresolved chapter disputes to become instruments for discrediting the entire national leadership risks deepening the very divisions that all genuine stakeholders claim to oppose.

ANLCA occupies an important position in Nigeria’s customs brokerage, freight forwarding and international trade ecosystem. Its ability to protect members’ professional interests and engage effectively with the Nigeria Customs Service, regulatory authorities, terminal operators and other stakeholders depends substantially on institutional credibility and internal cohesion.

That responsibility makes it imperative for all stakeholders to approach internal disagreements with restraint, factual accuracy and a genuine commitment to institutional preservation.

The association does not benefit from the constant recycling of disputed claims, selective historical accounts or narratives that reduce complex constitutional and membership questions to convenient accusations against its national leadership.

Nor does the Nwokeoji administration require the pretense that every internal disagreement has disappeared before its efforts at reconciliation can be acknowledged.

What should matter is the commitment to resolving inherited disputes through lawful and legitimate processes, protecting the association’s constitutional structures and ensuring that no individual or faction is allowed to substitute personal ambition for institutional authority.

The MMIA and Abuja situations must therefore be understood within their proper contexts, rather than elevated into sweeping verdicts on the overall performance or legitimacy of the national leadership.

Three years into its tenure, the Nwokeoji administration should certainly remain open to scrutiny, constructive criticism and legitimate demands for accountability. But such scrutiny must be founded on facts, balanced historical perspectives and a proper understanding of the institutional challenges confronting the association.

Ultimately, ANLCA’s unity project cannot be sustained by assigning blame to the national president alone, particularly for disputes inherited from previous administrations or controversies in which the actions and dispositions of other stakeholders remain consequential.

The real test of commitment to unity is not how loudly one demands reconciliation, but how sincerely one is prepared to participate in it.

ANLCA needs less factional grandstanding, fewer competing narratives and more institutional responsibility. Its preservation must be a collective undertaking, guided by constitutional order, mutual respect and an uncompromising commitment to the common interests of its members.