The Concerned Accredited Freight Forwarding Associations (CAFFA) has attributed the opposition of the Association of Nigeria Licensed Customs Agents (ANLCA) to the collection of the Practitioners’ Operating Fees (POF) by the Council for the Regulation of Freight Forwarding in Nigeria (CRFFN)to the invalidation of the contract terms between the first Governing Council of CRFFN dominated by ANLCA and S.W. Global.
In a statement signed by the National Presidents of the four associations that made up the CAFFA namely; Fwdr. Eugene Nweke of the National Association of Government Approved Freight Forwarders (NAGAFF), Fwdr. Festus Ejiofor of the National Council of Managing Directors of Licensed Customs Agents (NCMDLCA), Fwdr. C.A.T Agubamah of the National Association of Air Freight Forwarders and Consolidators (NAFFAC) and Fwdr. Frank Ukor of the Association of Registered Freight Forwarders of Nigeria (AREFFN) noted that the first council contracted the S.W Global for the collection of the fees with a sharing formula of 60% to 40% in favour of the CRFFN and S.W. Global.
According to the statement, “As regards the impasse over the collection of Practitioners’ Operating Fees, the last is yet to be heard because of the deals which may have been entered into by the first Council members. It is on record that the first Council contracted the S.W. Global for the collection. A close look into the contract indicates 60% for the Council while SW Global will take 40%. It is unfortunate that the first Council which was dominated by ANLCA members has been dissolved. It is apparent that the in-house abuse in the contract term has become invalid hence the agitation and internal wrangling in ANLCA over the collection”.
On why CAFFA allotted the fifteen seats allocated to the five accredited freight forwarding associations by the CRFFN amongst them in the manner it did instead of through the electoral process as was the case in the constitution of the first Council, it explained that the allotment was done on the basis of membership strength and the spread of the respective associations as well as the role played in the process of midwiving the birth of the CRFFN.
“The four associations represented at the meeting are NAGAFF, NCMDLCA, AREFFN and NAFFAC. Whereas the Association of Nigeria Licensed Customs Agents (ANLCA) did not attend the meeting, however a quorum was formed as four associations were represented, thereby validating resolutions taken and adopted at the meeting. In a democracy majority carries the day, even if ANLCA had attended, it would not have altered resolutions taken and adopted by the greater number of the associations and its members duly accredited by CRFFN”.
It is important to restate that the 5 seats of NAGAFF ahead of ANLCA was on merit because NAGAFF has the greater number of individual freight forwarders and spread in the country coupled with the fact that they originated, sponsored and facilitated the emergence of CRFFN. It is also a fact that NAGAFF is very resourceful and innovative as acknowledged by the discerning public”.
“On the part of ANLCA with 4 member nominees, it is to appreciate their 35% membership of Licensed Customs Agents ahead of others and its above average spread nationwide. The other three associations are growing very fast and must be encouraged by the two big brothers NAGAFF/ANLCA hence the two seats each allocated to each of them”, the statement clarified.
While expressing the hope that ANLCA and its members realize that CRFFN by a court ruling is an agency of the government with powers of coercion, it however reminded the association that in a democracy, it was a game of number adding that 4:1 was to state the obvious that ANLCA was in the extreme minority under the circumstance of accredited associations by CRFFN.
2 Comments
Sometimes I want to believe that stories concerning situations in the freight forwarding subsector are written with undue recklessness. Is there nothing like logic guiding what is being spewed out to the reading public? For instance on the currently happening disagreement over the collection of the port operations fee by CRFFN, what ANLCA is saying sounds logical and VERIFIABLE while the position of “CAFFA” looks ludicrous especially in trying to justify its call for seats in the proposed Governing Council to be allotted on association basis. The crucial question is whether “CAFFA” is asking for the suspension of some clauses in the CRFFN Act. What really is the gist or do we continue the tradition of talking for talking sake?
Further on the port operations fee imbroglio, one is greatly amused by some spurious claims and allegations by the so-called CAFFA but of course, the main people in the freight forwarding arena involved in the “association mania” have always exhibited the tendency to comical approach to serious issues. Questions raised as to the potential violation of extant laws including sections of the CRFFN Act itself are brushed aside. Instead, we are being regaled with mundane stories of who supported or worked for the formation of CRFFN. Or wild allegations about who arranged for one deal or the other. Haba, are things like blackmail, character assassination and double-speaking standard in the freight forwarding arena? Suddenly, those who had been saying that CRFFN by the Act establishing it is not and ought not be a government agency are now shouting themselves hoarse acclaiming it to be super government agency with COERSIVE POWERS? Wonders shall never end! But if CRFFN is such a government agency and the port operations fee a government revenue, has anything changed in the nation’s statutes that all government revenue should go to the Federation Account? Champions of government power should beware!