A Federal High court sitting in Lagos had recently ruled that the apex regulatory agency of the freight Forwarding industry in Nigeria, the Council for the Regulation of freight Forwarding in Nigeria (CRFFN) is a government agency.
Two freight forwarders, Messrs Ejike Nweke and Philip Nwankwo had gone to court to seek a declaration of the court that the defendant in this case, CRFFN is not a public Parastatal or government agency in line with paragraph 10 of the 1st schedule to the Council Act.
The duo who also were the applicants on the matter also sought an order of the court to hold that the number of persons required to constitute the defendant’s council at any point in time is 40 persons including 15 persons to be elected under section 2(1) (g) and a declaration that corporate persons are not qualified to be registered as freight forwarders and accordingly to make a consequential order that the names of all corporate persons be expunged from the register of freight forwarders kept by the defendant.
Ruling on the matter, the Presiding Judge, Honourable Justice Saliu Saidu ruled that the combined operation of the relevant sections of the CRFFN Act 2007 made it clear that the defendant is a statutory regulatory agency of government.
According to Justice Saidu, the plaintiffs wrongly held notion and equation of the defendant with professional association was responsible for the submission of the plaintiffs that the defendant was neither a public Parastatal nor government agency.
In his word,” the combined operation of section 1 (1), 2 (1) particularly (d)-(f), 4 and 5 of CRFFN Act 2007, made it clear that the defendant is a statutory regulatory agency of government of a similar status and comparable with other professional regulatory agencies of government. These bodies/agencies are not specifically provided for in section 318 (1) of the constitution of Nigeria and the same does not prevent them from being bodies/agencies of government and there is no reason why the non provision for the defendant in the constitution of Nigeria 1999 would prevent it from being a regulatory agency of government”.
“From the totality of the submission of counsels before the court, I believe the notion held by the plaintiffs that the CRFFN is a professional association led to the question raised for determination”.
“The plaintiffs/Applicants must first know that the CRFFN is not a professional association and this can be clearly seen from the power conferred on the Minister and the representation of some federal ministry and federal government agency on the council”.
“To the extend that it is easy to hold that the council is an extension of the government power to create agency and therefore an agency of the federal government of Nigeria”.
On the number of persons to constitute the defendant’s council, the Judge ruled that under section 2 (1) (a)-(g) in the composition of the maiden council of the defendant for the first four years was limited to twenty-five persons and that this excluded the fifteen persons to be elected under section 2 (1) (g) of the Act.
He further said that the word a person used in paragraph 10 of the 1st schedule to the CRFFN Act 2007 was restrictive to a person elected or nominated under section 2 (1) of the CRFFN Act to the membership of the council of the defendant and not in reference to the defendant whose exercise was by virtue of section 1 (1) of the CRFFN Act 2007.
“While the criteria which the natural person should meet to qualify for registration as freight forwarder are set out in section 13 (1)-(3), that of the corporate person is set out in section 18 (1) and by extension, section 30 of the Act”.
“The Act of registering the corporate person by the defendant is therefore supported by the Act and the action of the defendant in this respect is legal”.
“A freight forwarder by the virtue of the CRFFN Act 2007 includes natural and corporate person. And such a person are entitled to be registered as freight forwarder pursuant to section 18 (1) (3) of the same Act”, he said.
The presiding Judge also disclosed that the registration of company as registered freight forwarder were clearly confirmed by the above provisions and that nothing more was intended by the law makers and that he held that corporate body can be registered as freight forwarder within the CRFFN Act.
“On the above, I adopt the interpretation of the Learned Attorney General of the Federation Mohammed Bello Adoke (SAN) as the said section 2 (1)-(g) as the correct interpretation of the same”.
“I completely concur with the interpretation contained in exhibit A attached to the application before the court and the same shall be my interpretation of the said section 2 (1) (a)-(g) of CRFFN Act 2007”.
“I have not seen anything before the court to warrant the granting of any of the reliefs sought by the applicants. I hereby refuse the reliefs sought and dismiss the application accordingly”, the Judge ruled.
While ruling that there was no ambiguity in the CRFFN Act and that the duty of the court was limited to interpreting the provisions of the Act as it were and not as it ought to be, Justice Saidu however advised the plaintiffs to propose amendment to the relevant sections for the CRFFN Act to take care of their perceived worries as the only remedy opened to them at the moment.
