Clearing Agents Back Court Judgement Against POF Collection At Seaports

Clearing agents operating at the nation’s seaports have applauded the Federal High Court judgement that declared the collection of Practitioners’ Operating Fee (POF) from Licensed Customs Agents as illegal.
The agents under the aegis of the National Council of Managing Directors of Licensed Customs Agents (NCMDLCA) had secured a victory against the Council for the Regulation of Freight Forwarding in Nigeria (CRFFN).

The association secured the judgment against the minister of Transportation and the Council for the Regulation of Freight Forwarding in Nigeria (CRFFN) after the national president, Lucky Amiwero, stood against the collection of the CRFFN, arguing that, the collection of the fee was not tied to service on import and export.

The judgement, delivered on Monday, May 26, 2025, effectively nullifies the directive issued by the ministry of Transportation mandating that Licensed Customs Agents (LCAs) to obtain clearance from the CRFFN including payment of registration fees, subscription dues, and Practitioners Operating Fees (POF) as a precondition for access to ports and renewal of operational licenses.

According to the court, the regulation of Licensed Customs Agents falls squarely under the Customs and Excise Management Act (CEMA), which vests authority solely in the minister of Finance and the Nigeria Customs Service (NCS).

However, speaking to LEADERSHIP on the judgment, the NCMDLCA president disclosed that the association would seek a refund of all payments made under the POF.

He said his organisation, being a body of licensed Customs agents, is a distinct professional body different from freight forwarders, who are the sole concern of the CRFFN.

He explained that, the NCMDLCA shall follow due process in ensuring that licensed customs agents are not unlawfully obstructed from accessing the port to perform their lawful duties or made to pay monies that have been declared illegal by the court

He queried the use of POF collected in the past, stating that, nothing tangible has been done with the funds so far collected by CRFFN from LCAs. He stated that, there are no infrastructure or any development projects attributable to the fund and that, even if the CRFFN and the ministry of Marine and Blue Economy try to appeal the case, the NCMDLCA is ready to meet them in court.

The court ruling by Justice D.E.Osiagor also noted that the CRFFN Act of 2007 was established to regulate freight forwarders and cannot be applied to customs agents without breaching statutory and constitutional safeguards. As such, any overlap in practice or port access does not justify regulatory conflation.

The court found that the minister of Transportation, acting through the NPA and CRFFN, had overstepped legal boundaries by attempting to impose regulatory and financial obligations on a profession it has no statutory control over.

The court was absolute in its ruling, stating that, ‘ Only the Minister of Finance, acting through the Nigeria Customs Service, is statutorily authorised to regulate the business and operation of Licensed Customs Agents.’ Section 2 of CEMA explicitly defines “Minister” as referring to the Minister of Finance, while Sections 153 and 156 detail the licensing, oversight, and fee structures for LCAs. Nowhere in the Act is the Ministry of Transportation empowered to interfere in the regulatory affairs of customs agents.

The judgment reinforced that LCAs are a distinct professional body from freight forwarders, who are the sole concern of the CRFFN. The court noted that the CRFFN Act of 2007 was established to regulate freight forwarders and cannot be applied to customs agents without breaching statutory and constitutional safeguards. As such, any overlap in practice or port access does not justify regulatory conflation.

Central to the suit was the controversial directive, first published in the Vanguard newspaper on August 1, 2017, which required LCAs to comply with CRFFN clearance procedures and pay associated fees for access to port facilities. The court ruled that this directive not only lacked legal foundation but also imposed an “unauthorised and unlawful financial imposition” that had no backing under CEMA.

The judgment further held that the directive created serious regulatory confusion and jeopardy for LCAs, subjecting them to dual and conflicting obligations, and placing their businesses and constitutional rights at risk. By conditioning port access and license renewal on compliance with CRFFN regulations, the directive effectively undermined the LCAs’ ability to carry out their statutory duties, amounting to what the court described as “constructive exclusion from lawful business.”

The judgment represents a significant legal victory for the NCMDLCA and reaffirms the supremacy of statutory law over administrative overreach.