The Nigerian Coast Guard Bill has sparked a heated, ongoing debate across parliament, civil society, and the wider public. Proponents argue it could bolster maritime security and unlock the country’s blue economy. Critics, however, warn that it would create redundancy, strain resources, and complicate Nigeria’s already fragile security architecture. Here’s a deeper look at the core concerns and why many observers view the bill as a step in the wrong direction.

The gist of the bill and its origins

• The concept of a Nigerian Coast Guard dates back to 2021, when a bill in the 9th Senate proposed establishing a full-fledged coast guard under the Ministry of Marine and Blue Economy.
• The stated aim: safeguard Nigeria’s maritime zones, enforce maritime laws, protect offshore installations, and conduct search-and-rescue operations.
• Critics argue that this “complementarity” with existing agencies is illusory and would instead introduce redundancy and conflicts over authority.

Why the bill gained traction again

• On December 5, 2024, stakeholders gathered for a public hearing at the National Assembly on the Nigerian Coast Guard (Establishment) Bill, 2024.
• The reintroduced bill, sponsored by Senator Wasiu Eshinlokun (APC-Lagos), moved through notable legislative milestones, including a second reading in the Senate in October 2024 and a December 2024 public hearing by the Senate Committee on Marine Transport.
• Supporters claim a coast guard could strengthen maritime security and accelerate Nigeria’s blue economy. Critics counter that the bill could duplicate efforts and siphon resources from established institutions.

The strongest criticisms

• Overlaps with the Nigerian Navy: A central point of contention is that a new Coast Guard would duplicate the Navy’s duties. Senior naval officers argue this could lead to jurisdictional conflicts, inefficiencies, and unnecessary competition for scarce resources.
• Resource constraints and fragmentation: Critics warn that adding another agency would fragment Nigeria’s already overburdened maritime security architecture, divert funds, and complicate coordination among agencies.
• Constitutional and legal concerns: The Nigerian Constitution recognises the Army, Navy, and Air Force as military arms. Creating a new military branch without a constitutional amendment raises legal ambiguities and could disrupt the established chain of command in emergencies.
• Militant groups and security threats: There are concerns that new, informal groups or militias might try to fold into or influence a Coast Guard structure, potentially undermining legitimacy and effectiveness.
• Doubt about added value: International best practices show that maritime security is often strengthened by civilian-led agencies focused on law enforcement and search-and-rescue, while militarised forces handle other security tasks. In Nigeria’s case, supporters argue for strengthening the Navy and existing agencies (like NIMASA and NIWA) rather than creating a parallel force.

Why proponents still argue it could help

• Some maritime stakeholders and experts believe a Coast Guard would beef up maritime security, improve enforcement of laws at sea, and catalyse investment in the blue economy.
• They argue that a dedicated coast guard could bring focused attention to coastal and offshore threats, improved search-and-rescue capabilities, and better governance of Nigeria’s vast maritime zones.

The current crossroads

• The NSA, Mallam Nuhu Ribadu, reportedly rejected the proposal, citing security concerns about non-state actors in the Niger Delta region and the potential risks of creating a new armed entity.
• Critics urge reform and strengthening of existing institutions rather than multiplying security agencies. They emphasise the need for better funding, clearer mandates, and improved inter-agency coordination, with the Ministry of Marine and Blue Economy playing a central coordinating role.

What this means for Nigeria’s maritime future

• A coast guard bill, if enacted without careful design and constitutional alignment, risks duplicating effort, draining scarce resources, and inflaming jurisdictional disputes.
• A more prudent path, many observers suggest, is to bolster current institutions—NIMASA, NIWA, and the Nigerian Navy—through funding, training, technology upgrades, and enhanced inter-agency collaboration.
• The broader objective should be to create a coordinated maritime security framework that protects coastlines, enforces laws, supports the blue economy, and delivers rapid, unified responses to threats without creating new constitutional or administrative frictions.

Questions to consider

• If a Coast Guard were established, how would it interact with the Navy, NIMASA, NIWA, and the Ministry of Marine and Blue Economy?
• What constitutional or legal amendments would be necessary to prevent overlap and ensure a unified command structure in emergencies?
• How can Nigeria better protect its waterways and offshore assets without risking budgetary strain or governance fragmentation?
• What best practices from other countries could Nigeria adapt to strengthen, rather than duplicate, its maritime security framework?

Nigeria certainly faces significant maritime challenges, ranging from piracy and smuggling to offshore asset protection and search-and-rescue needs. But the path to resolving these issues is not necessarily a new armed agency. For many, the most effective route is to reform and reinforce the existing maritime security architecture, improve inter-agency coordination, and invest in infrastructure, training, and governance. The Nigerian Coast Guard Bill, as it stands, is viewed by its critics as a perilous and counterproductive endeavour that could complicate matters more than it clarifies them.