Amiwero Defeats CRFFN As Court Declares Collection of POF From Customs Agents Illegal

By DAPO OLAWUNI

National Council of Managing Directors of Licensed Customs Agents (NCMDLCA) have secured a landmark victory against the Council for the Regulation of Freight Forwarding in Nigeria (CRFFN) as a Federal High Court in Lagos delivered a decisive verdict in Suit No. FHC/CS/765/2018, declared that the collection of Practitioners’ Operating Fee (POF) from Licenced Customs Agents is illegal.

The association secured the judgement against the Honorable Minister of Transportation, the Nigerian Ports Authority (NPA), and the Council for the Regulation of Freight Forwarding in Nigeria (CRFFN)

National President of NCMDLCA, Mr Lucky Eyis Amiwero have over the years stood against the collection of the CRFFN, arguing that collection of the fee is not tied to service on import and export.
 
The judgment, 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).

Speaking at a press briefing in Lagos on Friday, the NCMDLCA President disclosed that the association would seek for a refund of all payments made under the POF.
He said that 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 to journalists 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 the POF collected in the past stating that nothing tangible has been done with the funds so far collected by CRFFN from LCAs . He stated there are no infrastructure or any development project attributable to the fund and stated that even if the CRFFN and Ministry of Marine and Blue Economy try to appeal the case, the NCMDLCA is ready for 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 authorized 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 “unauthorized 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 court also dismissed arguments suggesting that the plaintiffs had consented to the directive by attending stakeholder meetings. It ruled that mere attendance did not amount to legal acquiescence, especially since estoppel cannot operate to validate an act that is fundamentally ultra vires and unlawful.

Consequently, the court granted all declaratory and consequential reliefs sought by the NCMDLCA, including the setting aside of the Ministerial directive and affirming the right of LCAs to access ports and operate freely based solely on valid licenses issued under CEMA. In its final orders, the court declared that , The Ministry of Transportation lacks the legal authority to regulate Licensed Customs Agents, the directive mandating compliance with CRFFN requirements is ultra vires, null, and void, Licensed Customs Agents shall not be subjected to regulation or fee payment to CRFFN for port access or license renewal and any such administrative action contravenes statutory and constitutional rights and must be struck down.

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