Opinions

Environmental Rights as Constitutional Rights: Nigeria’s Legal Evolution, by Collins Okeke

The Supreme Court’s watershed decision in Centre for Oil Pollution Watch (COPW) v. Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (2019) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1666) 518 cemented the constitutional status of environmental rights.

Published

11 months ago

January 17, 2025

OCHEFA

274 Views

Introduction

The environmental crisis in Nigeria’s Niger Delta region represents one of the most severe cases of industrial pollution in human history.

Since oil’s discovery in 1958, this once-pristine delta ecosystem has endured systematic degradation through oil spills, with conservative estimates indicating between 9 and 13 million barrels of oil released into the environment.

Between 2020-2021 alone, the National Oil Spill Detection and Response Agency documented 822 separate oil spills, releasing 28,003 barrels of oil into sensitive ecosystems.

Nigerian courts have developed an innovative constitutional framework for environmental protection in response to this ongoing environmental catastrophe.

This jurisprudential evolution marks a significant departure from traditional common law and statutory remedies, establishing environmental rights as fundamental human rights deserving constitutional protection.

Changing environmental rights from mere policy objectives to enforceable constitutional rights represents one of the most significant developments in Nigerian constitutional law.

Constitutional Framework for Environmental Protection

The Nigerian Constitution establishes environmental protection through several interconnected provisions.

Section 20 explicitly mandates that “the State shall protect and improve the environment and safeguard the water, air and land, forest and wildlife of Nigeria.”

Whilst placed within Chapter 2 of the Constitution, this provision has gained increasing significance through judicial interpretation and legislative action.

Traditionally, Section 20’s placement within the Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy rendered it non-justiciable under Section 6(6)(c) of the Constitution.

However, Nigerian courts have developed two significant exceptions to this principle of non-justiciability.

The first exception arises when the National Assembly exercises its powers under Items 60(a) and 68 of the Exclusive Legislative List by enacting laws to “promote and enforce the observance of the Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles” contained in Chapter 2 of the Constitution.

When the National Assembly enacts legislation relating to Chapter 2 provisions pursuant to Items 60(a) and 68 of the Exclusive Legislative List, the courts have consistently held these provisions to be enforceable.

The second exception occurs when Chapter 2 provisions are interpreted in conjunction with justiciable provisions of the Constitution, particularly the fundamental rights outlined in Chapter 4. In such circumstances, the provisions of Chapter 2 become enforceable.

Beyond Section 20, the Constitution provides additional environmental protection through fundamental rights provisions.

Section 33(1)’s right to life and Section 34(1)’s right to human dignity have been interpreted to encompass environmental protection.

These provisions within the justiciable Chapter 4 provide direct avenues for environmental rights enforcement.

African Charter Framework

The African Charter operates through a unique dual mechanism in Nigeria, functioning as an international treaty and as domestic legislation through the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act.

The Supreme Court in Abacha v Fawehinmi (2000) 6 NWLR (Pt. 660) 228 established that whilst the African Charter is subject to the Constitution, it holds “a greater vigour and strength” than ordinary domestic statutes.

The Charter provides several environmental rights that complement constitutional protections.

Article 4 guarantees the right to life, which the African Commission has interpreted to include protection from life-threatening environmental conditions.

Article 16 establishes the right to the best attainable state of physical and mental health, whilst Article 22 recognises the right to economic, social, and cultural development.

Most directly, Article 24 guarantees the right to a general satisfactory environment favourable to development.

These Charter rights gain additional force through the Fundamental Rights Enforcement Procedure Rules 2009, which mandate expansive interpretation of both constitutional and Charter rights.

The Rules specifically provide for enforcement of Charter rights alongside constitutional rights, creating a comprehensive framework for environmental protection.

Early Jurisprudential Developments Initial judicial approaches to environmental rights claims adopted a restrictive interpretation of constitutional provisions.

Courts generally treated environmental matters as policy issues rather than justiciable rights, limiting remedies to traditional common law and statutory frameworks.

This approach reflected a narrow reading of Section 6(6)(c), treating Chapter 2 provisions, including Section 20’s environmental mandate, as purely aspirational. However, over time, this restrictive approach began to shift.

The Supreme Court established the transition from non-justiciability to enforceability of Chapter 2 rights in the landmark decision of Olafisoye v. Federal Republic of Nigeria (2005) 51 WRN 6. Olafisoye was charged with corrupt practices under Section 15(5) of Chapter 2 of the Constitution, which addresses the fundamental objective of government to abolish corruption.

Olafisoye challenged his indictment on the grounds that Section 15(5) of Chapter 2 of the Constitution was non-justiciable.

After losing at both the High Court and Court of Appeal, he made a final appeal to the Supreme Court.

Justice Niki Tobi, delivering the lead judgement, first reviewed the history of Chapter 2 rights and referenced the “raison d’être” of the Constitution’s drafters to explain the chapter’s rationale.

The Supreme Court Justice stated that Chapter 2 rights were established in the Constitution as aspirational goals with future potential for enforceability.

He explained that this was why Section 6(6)(c) provided exceptions to the non-justiciability of Chapter 2.

Justice Niki Tobi held that whilst corrupt practices established by Section 15(5) are not justiciable at face value, these provisions may become justiciable when read in conjunction with Item 60(a) of the Second Schedule to the Constitution, which empowers the National Assembly “to promote and enforce the observance of the Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles contained in this Constitution.”

He stated: “The non-justiciability of Section 6(6)(c) of the Constitution is neither total nor sacrosanct as the subsection provides a leeway by the use of the words ‘except as otherwise provided by the Constitution.’

A community reading of Item 60(a) and Section 15(5) results in quite a different package, a package which no more leaves Chapter 2 a toothless dog which could only bark but cannot bite.

In my view, by the joint reading of the two provisions, Chapter 2 becomes clearly and obviously justiciable.”

The Supreme Court dismissed Olafisoye’s objection, with Justice Niki Tobi holding that the indictment fell within the exceptions permitting the National Assembly to legislate the enforcement of Chapter 2 rights.

The Olafisoye decision established the doctrine that whilst Chapter 2 (Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy) is generally non-justiciable, it is enforceable within the exceptions permitted by the Constitution.

The Gbemre Decision: A New Direction

The Federal High Court’s decision in Gbemre v Shell Petroleum Development Company Nigeria Ltd & Ors (2005) AHRLR 151 marked a fundamental transformation in Nigerian environmental rights jurisprudence.

The case concerned gas flaring activities in the Niger Delta region, with communities alleging violations of both constitutional and Charter rights.

The Court’s groundbreaking decision recognised environmental rights as fundamental human rights for the first time in Nigerian judicial history.

In a seminal declaration, the Court held that “the constitutionally guaranteed fundamental rights to life and dignity of human person provided in Sections 33(1) and 34(1) of the Constitution… inevitably includes the right to clean poison-free, pollution-free and healthy environment.”

Significantly, the Court found that gas flaring activities violated these constitutional rights, establishing that industrial activities causing environmental harm could constitute fundamental rights violations.

The decision also bridged constitutional and Charter protections, demonstrating how these frameworks could work together to protect environmental rights.

COPW: Supreme Court Confirmation

The case arose from an oil pipeline explosion that contaminated waterways, destroyed aquatic life, and threatened community health and livelihoods.

The Supreme Court stated: “The present action concerns an oil pipeline that burst, allegedly spilling crude oil into waterways, polluting drinking sources and destroying aquatic life, plant life, and fauna, and also endangering the health and lives of the people of the community.

In this regard, Section 33 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 provides for the right to life.

Any act or omission which threatens the health of the people of the community also threatens their lives and is in breach of the guarantee of the right to life provided by the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999.”

The Court further stated: “Section 33 of the 1999 Constitution guarantees the right to life whilst Section 20 of the Constitution provides that ‘the State shall protect and improve the environment and safeguard the water, air and land, forest and wildlife of the country.’

See also: Article 24 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, which provides ‘All peoples shall have the right to a general satisfactory environment favourable to their development.’

These provisions show that the Constitution, the legislature and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, to which Nigeria is a signatory, recognise the fundamental rights of the citizenry to a clean and healthy environment to sustain life.”

This judgement significantly expanded the scope of environmental rights within the context of oil pollution damage, particularly linking the right to life and the right to a clean environment.

Communities affected by environmental degradation now have standing to bring constitutional claims. Courts must consider environmental harm within the framework of fundamental rights violations.

Impact and Current State of the Law

The COPW decision effectively overruled more restrictive approaches to environmental rights, establishing several crucial principles.

First, it confirmed that environmental degradation can violate fundamental rights under both the Constitution and the African Charter.

Second, it established that environmental rights are directly enforceable through constitutional claims.

Third, it mandated a broad and purposive interpretation of environmental rights to ensure effective protection. Subsequent courts have consistently followed and built upon COPW’s constitutional framework.

Most notable are Mobil Producing (Nig) Unlimited v. Ajanaku & Anor (2021) LPELR-52566(CA) and Chief Isaac Obor – Ntito Torchi and Others v. Shell Development Company Limited and Others (Suit No. FHC/OW/CS/05/2020).

In the latter case, the most recent case, the court awarded unprecedented damages of Eight Hundred Billion Naira against Shell for environmental pollution – the largest such award in Nigerian history. This represents a decisive shift from the old constitutional orthodoxy that considered environmental rights non-justiciable to the current approach treating them as enforceable constitutional rights.

These developments have significant practical implications. Communities affected by environmental degradation now have standing to bring constitutional claims. Courts must consider environmental harm within the framework of fundamental rights violations.

The broad interpretative approach mandated by COPW and followed in subsequent cases provides flexibility in recognising various forms of environmental harm as rights violations.

These legal developments for multinational oil companies operating in Nigeria present substantial new risks and obligations.

The elevation of environmental rights to constitutional status means that oil companies now face potential liability not just under traditional environmental regulations, but also for fundamental rights violations.

This expanded liability framework has several key implications for multinationals:

First, the constitutional framework allows for significantly higher damages awards, as demonstrated by the Eight Hundred Billion Naira judgement against Shell.

Unlike statutory environmental fines, there are no preset limits on constitutional damages.

Second, the broader standing rules for constitutional claims mean that entire communities, not just directly affected individuals, can bring claims against oil companies.

Third, the constitutional nature of these rights means that companies cannot rely on mere compliance with environmental regulations as a complete defence – they must ensure their operations do not infringe on fundamental rights to life and a healthy environment.

Finally, the constitutional framework creates enhanced reputational risks for multinationals, as being found liable for human rights violations carries greater stigma than traditional environmental infractions.

▪︎Collins Okeke is an Associate Partner, Olisa Agbakoba Legal.

Up Next

Trump: The Man Whom The World Fears and Why

Don't Miss

Propaganda Journalism: Are Image Makers To Blame or The Board ?

Click to comment

Opinions

Agbakoba Writes Oyetola on ‘Unlocking Nigeria’s Maritime Potential to Generate ₦70 Trillion Annually’

In the West and Central Africa region, 80% of containers are destined for Nigeria, but less than 20% actually arrive because of the decayed infrastructure—whether at Lagos, Port Harcourt, or other ports.

Published

1 week ago

November 30, 2025

OCHEFA

88 Views

IN SUMMARY

The N70 trillion will come from :

1. Port Infrastructure Development (N14 trillion annually)

2. Inland Waterways Development (N10-12 trillion annually).

3. Cabotage Enforcement (N8 trillion annually).

4. Oil Rig Taxation (N6 trillion annually—approximately 17% of the National Budget).

5. Oil and Gas Maritime Services (N16 trillion in annual losses)

6. Maritime Security and Blue Economy (N8-10 trillion annually).

7. Emerging Maritime Technologies (N5-6 trillion annually).

Dr. Olisa Agbakoba SAN Senior Partner, Olisa Agbakoba Legal (OAL), recently wrote to the minister of finance / coordinating minister of the economy, Wale Edun , on Positioning Nigeria Towards A N1 Quadrillion Economy.

This time, he writes to the Minister of Marine and Blue Economy, Mr. Adegboyega Oyetola, on the subject: “Unlocking Nigeria’s Maritime Potential to Generate ₦70 Trillion Annually.

INTRODUCTION

The maritime sector is potentially Nigeria’s largest economic sector outside oil and gas.

The Nigerian Institution of Marine Engineers and Naval Architects (NIMENA) projects that the maritime industry could contribute approximately $44 billion (N70 trillion) annually to Nigeria’s GDP with improved governance and regulation.

However, we are currently losing enormous revenue due to inadequate legal frameworks, poor infrastructure, and insufficient private sector participation.

The adoption of the National Policy on Marine and Blue Economy (2025-2034) by the Federal Executive Council is most welcome.

The policy document contains comprehensive recommendations for legal and regulatory reforms.

What is now needed is decisive implementation to unleash the sector’s tremendous potential.

It is within this implementation context that I write to present specific, revenue-generating interventions that can accelerate the policy’s objectives and deliver quantifiable outcomes within one year.

• Cargo ships

THE OPPORTUNITY: N70 TRILLION IN ANNUAL RECOVERABLE REVENUE

OAL study reveals that Nigeria’s maritime sector presents extraordinary opportunities currently unrealised due to legal and regulatory gaps.

The transformative element of this proposal is that the National Policy on Marine and Blue Economy (2025-2034) already contains most of the required legal and institutional reforms needed to capture these opportunities.

I shall now proceed to set them out as follows:

1. Port Infrastructure Development (N14 trillion annually)

Ports are critical to the development of any economy.

If people produce goods but cannot move them, the economy cannot get ahead.

A recent report by Dynanmar, a Dutch consultancy firm, shows that Nigeria loses approximately N20 billion daily at the ports due to poor infrastructure and inefficiencies, with most revenue flowing to neighbouring ports, particularly Cotonou, Tema, and Lomé.Nigeria should be a maritime hub like Morocco, which is building one of the biggest sea ports to trade effectively with Europe, the Middle East, and North Africa.

But we cannot be a maritime hub if our ports are in a bad state.

Yet the Lekki Deep Sea Port demonstrates the transformative potential—it is already attracting over $20 billion in investment and provides a replicable model for port modernization across Nigeria. Imagine what would come if all other ports were operating optimally.

The Apapa City Port requires massive overhaul. Strategic ports remain grossly underdeveloped or abandoned.

The Onitsha River Port lies idle despite its potential to transform inland cargo movement and decongest Lagos ports. New ports at Azumiri and Oraji are underdeveloped.

Port development projects in Akwa Ibom and Ogun states are commendable, but much more needs to be done.

To unlock this opportunity requires:

(a) enacting the Ports and Inland Waterways Development Act to modernise port operations, establish legal backing for Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) in port development, reform governance of the Nigerian Ports Authority to improve efficiency and competitiveness, regulate inland waterway transport ensuring safe navigation and infrastructure investment, and provide incentives for private sector investment in modern port infrastructure and smart port technology;

(b) amending the Nigerian Ports Authority (NPA) Act (1999) to enhance private sector participation through robust PPP frameworks; and(c) amending the National Inland Waterways Authority (NIWA) Act (1997) to mandate systematic dredging programmes, establish inland port development frameworks, and enable private sector participation in waterway management.

Achieving cargo dwell time of 48 hours or less and port throughput growth of 15% yearly or more are critical performance indicators.

Revenue streams include port tariffs and cargo handling fees from vessels using Nigerian ports, berthing and anchorage fees, container storage fees, transit trade fees for landlocked countries using Nigerian ports, and special economic zones for shipbuilding, repairs, and logistics.

2. Inland Waterways Development (N10-12 trillion annually).

The bad state of the ports is directly connected to our inland waterways. When the British were here, we had 42 inland waterways connected to roads and railways for cargo movement.

Nigeria must build a multimodal superhighway linking roads, trains, and inland waterways to maximize our trade potential.Nigeria’s inland waterways represent transformational economic corridors comparable to the Nile in Egypt.

Dredging the River Benue to Lokoja and the River Niger from Baro in Niger State to the Atlantic Ocean to a minimum draught of ten feet will enable transportation from Baro to Onitsha by speed boat in 90 minutes instead of 9 hours, and ferrying tonnes of yam and other farm produce from Makurdi to Onitsha on self-propelled barges in three hours.

Over 25,000 foreign vessels illegally trade in Nigeria’s coastal waters, representing both a national security challenge and massive economic loss.

The Nile River, at 26 to 36 feet deep, supports busy traffic of cargo and cruise ships, with cruises costing up to $500 per person for four days.

A fully operational Niger-Benue river system would dramatically reduce transportation costs, decongest road infrastructure, and create substantial tourism revenues comparable to Egypt’s Nile-based economic corridor.

This requires:(a) amendments to the NIWA Act to mandate systematic dredging programmes and inland port development;(b) enacting a Marine Spatial Planning (MSP) Act to regulate ocean space usage and avoid conflicts between industries (fishing, shipping, tourism, offshore energy), establishing a Marine Spatial Planning Authority to allocate maritime zones, setting rules for zoning fishing areas, shipping lanes, conservation zones, and renewable energy projects, and providing mechanisms for stakeholder consultation and dispute resolution;(c) enacting a Sustainable Fisheries and Aquaculture Act to strengthen regulation of fisheries and aquaculture ensuring sustainability and food security, introducing a national fisheries management system to enforce fishing quotas and conservation rules, creating a licensing system for commercial and artisanal fisheries, banning destructive fishing practices and regulating foreign fishing vessels, and strengthening penalties for Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated (IUU) fishing; and

(d) revitalisation of abandoned inland ports including the Onitsha River Port to restore the integrated multimodal transport system essential for economic competitiveness.

Revenue streams include toll charges on inland waterway transport managed by NIWA, revenue from ferry services for passenger and cargo transportation, foreign vessel licensing fees for companies fishing in Nigeria’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), commercial fishing permits for industrial-scale fishing companies, artisanal fishing licenses for small-scale fishers, and value-added income from fish processing industries.

3. Cabotage Enforcement (N8 trillion annually)

Over 25,000 foreign vessels illegally trade in Nigeria’s coastal waters, representing both a national security challenge and massive economic loss.

The National Policy specifically recommends reviewing the Coastal and Inland Shipping (Cabotage) Act 2003, strengthening institutions for effective enforcement, encouraging inter-agency synergy for implementation, and streamlining access to the Cabotage Vessel Financing Fund (CVFF).

To capture this opportunity requires:(a) amending the Cabotage Act (2003) to establish strict enforcement mechanisms and compliance requirements, with penalties including vessel seizure for violations, thereby ensuring Nigerian-crewed vessels constitute 50% or more of coastal trade and preventing the ongoing haemorrhaging of revenue to foreign operators;

(b) strengthening inter-agency collaboration between NIMASA, NPA, NIWA, Nigerian Navy, Marine Police, and security agencies for better governance and coordinated enforcement; and

(c) establishing a National Blue Economy Commission as a centralized body to coordinate activities across ministries of transport, environment, fisheries, petroleum, and trade, and develop marine economic zones to attract investments.

Revenue streams include registration fees from Nigerian-flagged vessels under NIMASA, fees from foreign vessels operating in Nigerian waters under the Cabotage Act, seafarers’ certification and training fees from maritime workers and companies, and increased domestic shipping revenues from Nigerian vessels.

4. Oil Rig Taxation (N6 trillion annually—approximately 17% of the National Budget)

Oil rigs have formed a cartel for tax avoidance. OAL is representing NIMASA in a tax avoidance case brought by oil rig companies.

NIMASA has confirmed that tax is currently not collected from oil rigs.Capturing this revenue requires:(a) amending the Nigerian Maritime Administration and Safety Agency (NIMASA) Act (2007) to expand its mandate beyond shipping, marine labor, and environmental protection to include responsibilities for marine conservation and blue economy oversight, establish a robust taxation framework for oil rigs operating in Nigerian waters, increase penalties for maritime pollution, illegal vessel operations, and labor violations, and strengthen NIMASA’s role in coastal tourism and renewable energy initiatives;(b) enacting a Marine Pollution Control and Climate Adaptation Act to strengthen environmental protection measures addressing pollution, oil spills, and climate risks, establish stricter penalties for marine pollution including oil spills, plastic waste, and ship-based pollution, require all offshore oil and gas companies to develop spill response and cleanup plans, support coastal communities with climate adaptation strategies including shoreline protection and disaster response, and mandate green shipping initiatives including reduced carbon emissions for vessels;(c) amending the Petroleum Industry Act (2021) to strengthen regulations on offshore oil and gas drilling to reduce environmental risks and introduce mandatory decommissioning funds for oil companies to clean up decommissioned offshore platforms;(d) creating a Marine Pollution Task Force to monitor and enforce environmental regulations across ports, coastal industries, and offshore platforms; and(e) amending the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) Act (1978) to update and increase Nigeria’s control over deep-sea mining and marine biodiversity conservation, and introduce provisions for sustainable offshore energy projects including offshore wind farms.

Revenue streams include royalties from offshore oil drilling and gas extraction, corporate taxes on oil companies operating in deep-sea oil fields, fees for pipeline installations and seabed resource extraction rights, tax revenue from private-sector investments in fish farms and marine aquaculture, revenue from private investment in offshore wind farms and tidal energy projects, and carbon credit sales under global climate agreements for using clean marine energy.

5. Oil and Gas Maritime Services (N16 trillion in annual losses)

This presents enormous losses across four critical value chains that exclude Nigerians.

Over $1 billion worth of legal work annually is lost to foreign firms. Nigerian shipping companies are not engaged to lift our crude oil products.

Funds accruable to Nigeria from crude oil production are domiciled in foreign banks and sometimes held for months before remittance to the Central Bank of Nigeria.

No Nigerian marine insurance company is involved in insurance underwriting for the over 1,000 oil rigs in Nigerian waters.

This stands in stark contrast to Saudi Arabia’s successful IKTVA program, which mandates and enforces local content, ensuring value retention within its economy.

To recapture these losses requires:(a) amending the Merchant Shipping Act (2007) to regulate the shipping industry, ship registration, and safety, and reviewing the legal framework for carriage of cargo from Free on Board (FOB) to Cost Insurance and Freight (CIF) to support growth of a national fleet;(b) strengthening enforcement of the Nigerian Oil and Gas Industry Content Development (Local Content Act) 2010 across all excluded value chains including legal services, shipping, banking, and insurance;(c) establishing the Maritime Development Bank to provide critical maritime assets and financing for indigenous capacity development; and(d) developing public-private partnerships (PPPs) in port expansion, inland waterway development, shipbuilding, and maritime infrastructure through tax incentives for investments in sustainable fishing, tourism, and renewable energy.Revenue streams include recaptured legal services fees, shipping revenues from Nigerian vessels lifting crude oil, timely remittance of oil revenues to CBN, and marine insurance underwriting fees.

6. Maritime Security and Blue Economy (N8-10 trillion annually)

This revenue potential comes through increased port traffic, reduced insurance premiums, and enhanced foreign direct investment in maritime infrastructure.

The Deep Blue Project, inaugurated in June 2021, has proven effective—the International Maritime Bureau acknowledged a 30 per cent drop in piracy cases in 2021 alone, demonstrating measurable return on security investments.

However, only a coast guard can adequately protect and assure maritime safety and security.

A fully secured maritime environment would attract international shipping lines currently avoiding Nigerian waters, dramatically increasing port revenues and related economic activities.

Achieving insurance premium reduction of 40% or more through sustained security would further unlock this sector’s potential.

This requires:(a) strengthening implementation of the Suppression of Piracy and Other Maritime Offences (SPOMO) Act of 2019 as specifically recommended in the National Policy;(b) enacting a Coast Guard Establishment Act to create a dedicated institution for maritime safety and security;(c) enacting a Maritime Security and Piracy Suppression Act to strengthen legal measures to combat piracy, sea robbery, and other maritime crimes, provide additional legal backing for Nigerian Navy and Marine Police to enforce security in Nigerian waters, establish specialized maritime courts to handle piracy, smuggling, and maritime security violations, and strengthen public-private partnerships for maritime surveillance including deploying technology for monitoring Nigerian waters;

(d) strengthening the Nigerian Navy and Marine Police through better funding and technology for coastal and offshore surveillance; and

(e) improving collaboration with ECOWAS and Gulf of Guinea partners for regional maritime security.Nigeria should also align with international and regional frameworks including the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), International Maritime Organization (IMO) Conventions (MARPOL for pollution control, SOLAS for safety, STCW for seafarers), Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), Paris Agreement on Climate Change, FAO Port State Measures Agreement for combating illegal fishing, African Union Blue Economy Strategy, African Continental Free Trade Agreement (AfCFTA), Gulf of Guinea Maritime Security Strategy, and ECOWAS Integrated Maritime Strategy (EIMS).

Revenue streams include fees from shipping companies for naval escort services in piracy-prone areas, revenue from joint maritime security operations with foreign shipping companies, fines imposed on vessels violating maritime laws (illegal fishing, pollution, piracy), confiscation and auctioning of vessels involved in illegal activities, tax revenue from hotels, resorts, and tourism operators along Nigeria’s coastline, fees from coastal ecotourism activities including whale watching, diving, and marine parks, entry fees for protected marine areas and islands, berthing fees from cruise ships docking at Nigerian ports, licenses for private yacht operations and water sports businesses, and luxury tourism taxes on high-end marine tourism experiences.

7. Emerging Maritime Technologies (N5-6 trillion annually)

This revenue potential comes through early adoption advantages and positioning Nigeria as a regional hub for digital maritime services.

The International Maritime Organisation (IMO) will implement mandatory requirements for Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships (MASS) by January 1, 2028.

Early implementation before this deadline would give Nigeria competitive advantage in West African maritime services, attract technology investments, and capture digital trade documentation fees currently lost to foreign platforms.Nigeria must:

(a) enact the Legal Framework for Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships (MASS) to position Nigeria for emerging maritime technologies before IMO’s mandatory 2028 requirements;(b) enact the Electronic Bill of Lading (eB/L) Framework to digitalise maritime trade documentation and capture fees currently lost to foreign platforms;

(c) enact a Blue Economy Act to establish a comprehensive legal framework for Nigeria’s blue economy covering marine governance, resource management, and economic development, with provisions establishing the National Blue Economy Commission to coordinate activities across ministries and agencies, providing clear rules on marine resource allocation, licensing, and conservation, defining legal responsibilities for the private sector, local communities, and government agencies, and outlining penalties for environmental violations, illegal fishing, and marine pollution;(d) amend the Sea Fisheries Act (1992) to increase fines and penalties for IUU fishing, strengthen monitoring and surveillance of Nigeria’s fishing waters using satellite tracking and observer programs, and require fishing vessels to adopt sustainable practices and report catch data transparently; and

(e) support capacity building and research institutions—support universities and research institutes in marine sciences and innovation to develop indigenous expertise.Revenue streams include revenue from pharmaceutical companies using marine resources for drug development, licensing fees for marine research and bioprospecting companies exploring Nigeria’s waters, tax income from seaweed farming for export as food, cosmetics, and biofuel raw material, government partnerships with investors in marine-based biofuels, government revenue from companies extracting rare earth minerals, manganese, and cobalt from Nigeria’s EEZ, taxes on companies exploring for marine-based minerals for battery production, income from controlled sand dredging for construction and land reclamation, and licensing fees for coral harvesting for medicinal and scientific purposes.

CONCLUSION

Nigeria’s maritime sector presents a N70 trillion annual opportunity (as projected by NIMENA) currently unrealised due to legal and regulatory gaps.

The transformative element of this proposal is that the National Policy on Marine and Blue Economy (2025-2034) already contains most of the required legal and institutional reforms.

The roadmap exists; what is needed is decisive implementation to translate policy into law and law into measurable economic outcomes.

This policy paper outlines a comprehensive legislative framework comprising nine new laws to be enacted (Ports and Inland Waterways Development Act, Marine Spatial Planning Act, Sustainable Fisheries and Aquaculture Act, Marine Pollution Control and Climate Adaptation Act, Coast Guard Establishment Act, Maritime Security and Piracy Suppression Act, Legal Framework for MASS, Electronic Bill of Laden.

Opinions

Soludo’s Historic Victory and the Anambra Renaissance

Published

4 weeks ago

November 11, 2025

Charles Flames

130 Views

By Christian ABURIME

When the Governor of Anambra State, Professor Chukwuma Charles Soludo, CFR, took the microphone in Awka on Sunday morning to deliver his victory speech, he did so not just as a re-elected governor, but as the beneficiary of something significant in Nigerian politics: an unambiguous popular mandate. His resounding re-election marks not just a personal triumph, but a watershed moment in Anambra’s democratic journey.

With 422,664 votes representing 73 percent of ballots cast, and victories across all 21 local government areas, Governor Soludo’s triumph transcends the arithmetic of electoral politics. It represents a decisive endorsement of governance, a validation of vision, and perhaps most significantly, a repudiation of the cynicism that too often characterises our democratic discourse.

The statistics from Saturday’s election deserve careful scrutiny, for they reveal a narrative far more compelling than mere electoral victory. Four years ago, when Governor Soludo first ascended to the governorship with 112,000 votes amid low voter turnout, skeptics questioned the strength of his mandate. On Saturday, the people of Anambra answered those doubts emphatically. Voter participation broke the historic 20 percent ceiling, reaching 22 percent, a milestone achievement in a state and nation where electoral apathy has become endemic.

Of course, this is not simply about percentages. It represents a fundamental shift in civic engagement, suggesting that when citizens believe their votes matter, when they see tangible results from governance, and when the electoral process inspires confidence, they would participate. The contrast between Governor Soludo’s initial 112,000 votes and his current 422,664 is not just a mere testimonial but a concrete one that the people have spoken emphatically

Governor Soludo’s gracious acknowledgement of INEC’s performance deserves particular attention.

His description of Saturday’s election as “the best election INEC has organised in Anambra so far” is quite significant, coming from a sitting governor with every incentive to remain diplomatically silent about the electoral body. His specific praise for INEC’s ICT department and the real-time upload of results on the IReV portal, with over 99 percent of polling unit results uploaded by midnight, also speaks to the technological transformation gradually reshaping Nigeria’s electoral landscape.

Besides, the transparency enabled by technology has been the great democratiser of this election cycle. When every citizen can download polling unit results in real-time, when the pathway from ballot box to final tally is illuminated by digital accountability, the space for manipulation narrows dramatically. And Governor Soludo’s victory is thus doubly legitimate: won at the polls and verified by digital precision.

An instructive element of Governor Soludo’s victory speech was his praise for President Bola Ahmed Tinubu as a “true democrat” committed to free and fair elections in Anambra. For long, ours has been a political culture where federal might has historically been deployed to influence state elections, but the presidential restraint in the Anambra election represents a form of democratic maturity that should not go unnoticed.

When presidents allow states to choose their own leaders without federal interference, when ruling parties accept defeat gracefully, when the machinery of state remains neutral in electoral contests, these become the building blocks of democratic consolidation.

In another dimension, Governor Soludo’s margin of victory, defeating his closest rival by more than 320,000 votes, creates an interesting political dynamic. Such comprehensive victories can be double-edged swords. They provide governors with the political capital to pursue ambitious agendas without the constant distraction of defending narrow mandates. Yet they also eliminate the moderating influence of competitive pressure, potentially fostering complacency or insularity.

But the governor’s gracious words to his fellow contestants, acknowledging that “sixteen of us were on the ballot, and obviously, one person will win”, suggest an awareness of this dynamic. His extension of fellowship to all contestants and his description of politics as “a contest of ideas, not enmity” reflects a maturity that Anambra’s political culture increasingly demands.

Yet, here lies the paradox of overwhelming victory: expectations would now soar proportionally to the mandate received. When nearly three-quarters of voters endorse your leadership, the burden of delivery becomes correspondingly heavier. Governor Soludo’s closing declaration, “you ain’t seen anything yet”, is both promise and prophecy, both aspiration and obligation.

In fact, as a leader who is fondly called ‘Oluatuegwu’ (one who doesn’t fear work), Governor Soludo had already got back to work before his victory declaration, calling the Commissioner for Budget for briefing while awaiting election results! For him, there is no luxury of time to indulge in any victory celebration. As he said, “It’s time to get back to work!”

He now has the leverage to go all the way and turn Anambra into an axis of sustainable flourishing of the African-Dubai-Taiwan-Silicon Valley

The broader significance of Saturday’s election may lie not in Anambra alone but in what it represents for Nigerian democracy. When electoral technology works, when results reflect genuine popular will, when incumbents are judged on performance rather than partisan or sectarian loyalties, when voter participation increases, we glimpse the democracy Nigeria could become.

Yes, Governor Soludo’s victory is historic not only because he won in all 21 local government areas but because of how he won: through a process widely acknowledged as transparent, through a mandate clearly expressed, through civic participation notably increased.
Indeed, Anambra has spoken. And in a democracy, that is both the beginning and the end, the alpha and omega verdict.

As the formidable ‘Oluatuegwu’ begins his second term with this strengthened mandate, the people of Anambra have sent an unmistakable message: we have employed you again. In response, the governor spoke of moving “into high gear to deliver more for the good of Anambra.” A new era begins now.

Opinions

Positioning Nigeria Towards a N1 Quadrillion Economy, By Dr. Olisa Agbakoba

We currently have one of the highest currency volatilities in Africa, with the naira depreciating by over 40% in 2024 alone, ranking among the continent’s worst performing currencies.

Published

4 weeks ago

November 9, 2025

OCHEFA

110 Views

• Dr Olisa Agbakoba, SAN

Dr Olisa Agbakoba (SAN) is offerring insights on how Nigeria can achieve a ₦1 Quadrillion economy in 10–15 years.

Dr Agbakoba, in a letter: IDEAS FOR A QUADRILLION NAIRA ECONOMY IN 10 to 15 YEARS, dated November 7, 2025, and addressed to the Minister of Finance and Coordinating Minister of the Economy, Mr. Wale Edun, propose three transformative reforms that could create the fundamentals and unlock over 1.5 quadrillion Naira in economic values.

The document reads: “

Dear Honourable Minister,

“I refer to your recent statement, “Nigeria Turns Towards Prosperity.” You highlighted the Tinubu government’s significant achievements including GDP growth, declining inflation, stabilized exchange rates, increased foreign reserves, and improved oil production.

Despite these successes, exchange rate volatility remains our most pressing challenge.

We currently have one of the highest currency volatilities in Africa, with the naira depreciating by over 40% in 2024 alone, ranking among the continent’s worst performing currencies.

With 1 billion naira worth less than 1 million dollars, demand naturally tilts toward the dollar. The root cause is simple.

The naira lacks fundamentals—tangible economic pillars that give people reason to hold and use.

To reverse this, we must create fundamentals to back the naira. I propose three transformative reforms that could create these fundamentals and unlock over 1.5 quadrillion naira in economic value.

The first is land and real estate titling.

1. Land and Real Estate Titling Reform

Studies done by the World Bank, PwC, and my firm OAL show that 90% of Nigerian land and real estate have tainted, defective, or no titles.

This creates “dead capital”—assets that cannot be traded, serve as collateral, and cannot be indexed to the financial system.

Economist Hernando de Soto demonstrated in his book “The Mystery of Capital” that converting dead capital into productive assets through formal property rights revolutionizes developing economies.

Margaret Thatcher called De Soto’s work a potential “enormously beneficial revolution” that addresses the fundamental weakness of Third World economies: the lack of property rights and enterprise frameworks.

Property titling reform transforms dead capital in land and real estate into legally recognized assets. Owners can use their land or homes as collateral to access credit. Banks become willing to lend because the property now represents secure collateral with enforceable legal backing.

This process releases the equity locked in land, converting illiquid assets into financial capital that can circulate through the economy.

The result is substantial new liquidity—more individuals and businesses gain access to loans, properties become tradable assets, and dormant wealth enters productive use.

The foundation for reform is already being laid. Your administration is implementing the National Land Registration, Documentation and Titling Programme, which aims to digitize land records and create a unified, transparent system. What is needed now is acceleration and scale.

By indexing property values to the financial system through digital integration and legal harmonization across federal and state systems, we can create an instant credit market worth potentially thousands of times our GDP.

The money flow would then be available to finance development across the nation.

Unlocking trapped property assets that are presently dead capital will encourage investors who currently prefer to buy properties abroad to buy in Nigeria.

This will deepen naira denominated asset markets, reduce dependency on dollar denominated assets for wealth storage, and strengthen demand for the naira by creating viable local investment alternatives.

Using the World Bank and PwC’s conservative estimates of $900 billion in dead capital, at today’s rate of ₦1,500 to $1, this represents 1.5 quadrillion naira.

The economic impact of releasing 1.5 quadrillion naira into productive use cannot be overstated.

If this is done with the same strategic approach as the tax reform, it will transform Nigeria’s economy, provide sustainable backing for the naira, and create the foundation for long term prosperity.

By creating a vast, liquid real estate market indexed to the financial system, land titling reform establishes a critical fundamental that anchors the naira’s value and dramatically reduces exchange rate volatility. I must also acknowledge challenges of inflationary pressure. Let me now move to the next coequal fundamental, and that is a credit economy.

Naira-denominated credit will boost domestic consumption of locally produced goods and services, reduce import demand and foreign exchange pressure.

2. Credit Economy Expansion

Nigeria operates a cash economy. This limits the economy’s potential because people can only buy what they can afford.

By contrast, a well-developed credit system allows people to buy what they cannot afford provided they manage their debt. For instance, 90% of Americans cannot afford a house without a mortgage.

In the same vein, any Nigerian who can pay rent can afford a mortgage, but this is not possible without a legal framework.

A robust policy and legal framework to support a credit process will be transformational. 200 million Nigerians, each with ₦300,000 in credit facilities, would inject ₦60 trillion into the economy.

Naira-denominated credit will boost domestic consumption of locally produced goods and services, reduce import demand and foreign exchange pressure.

A thriving naira credit market will deepen domestic financial markets and make the naira more attractive as an asset and reduce the speculative attacks that drive exchange rate volatility.

When citizens can access credit in naira to own homes, start businesses, and build wealth, the currency gains intrinsic value and stability.

This credit infrastructure becomes a vital fundamental—a reason for people to hold and transact in naira—thereby reducing our vulnerability to exchange rate shocks.

3. Agricultural Mechanization

In the United States, only 2% of the workforce are in agriculture, yet the sector contributes 5.5% to GDP and generates $1.5 trillion annually. In Nigeria, by contrast, 30 to 38% of the workforce, 15 to 19 times more workers proportionally, is employed in agriculture.

With our GDP at approximately $188 billion, the sector contributes 25 to 26% to GDP but generates only $47 to 49 billion annually, less than one thirtieth of America’s agricultural output despite having a vastly larger workforce.

This stark disparity reveals a fundamental truth: productivity, not the number of workers, determines agricultural success.

America achieves higher output with fewer workers through mechanization and a fully developed value chain: cold storage facilities, food processing plants, packaging companies, logistics networks, agricultural equipment manufacturing, fertilizer production, warehousing, quality control laboratories, marketing and distribution channels, agricultural finance services, and export infrastructure.

Nigeria, meanwhile, remains trapped at subsistence level using manual tools: hoes and cutlasses.

The transformation we need is mechanization, and the potential money flow would be tremendous. With a well developed policy and legal framework, capital will flow into the economy.

The agricultural sector is badly impacted by the titling challenge as defective and tainted land titles are precisely why we remain at subsistence level. Farmers cannot access capital for mechanization without proper collateral.

Moving from subsistence to mechanized agriculture will increase productivity, reduce post harvest losses, enhance food security, and position Nigeria as a net agricultural exporter.

Agricultural exports will generate substantial foreign exchange earnings, increasing FX supply and strengthening the naira.

More critically, food self sufficiency will eliminate the need to import basic staples, currently a major source of FX demand.

Reducing food imports alone could save billions of dollars annually, directly stabilizing exchange rates and reducing imported inflation. When a nation feeds itself and exports the surplus, its currency strengthens naturally.

Agricultural transformation thus creates a powerful fundamental: robust FX earnings and reduced import dependency that provides lasting stability to the naira and shields it from volatility.

What I have done here is to show that if these three reforms are implemented, along with many others like oil and gas, maritime sector optimization, and manufacturing, and are fully developed to back the naira, the naira can exchange at optimal rates because there is a fundamental backing it.

If well handled, we will see significant improvement in the next few years with reduced volatility and a stronger naira.

Honourable Minister, this is not going to be easy work. It is painstaking but doable.

The success of the tax reform shows it can be done. I project a timeline of 10 to 20 years, which is not too far-fetched.

During my lifetime, I have witnessed three presidents whom each served 8 years, so it can be done.

The difference between incremental improvement and transformative change is ambition matched with execution.

These reforms would not merely stabilize the naira; they would fundamentally restructure our economy and create sustainable prosperity for generations.

I have attached for your consideration Olisa Agbakoba Legal’s October policy paper, “Devolution is the Solution Foundational Reform Agenda for Nigeria’s Transformation.”