Chairman of Chidosky Marine Concept Ltd, Nze Chidiogo Okpara, speaking at the monthly Media Roundtable of the Congress of Maritime Media Practitioners (CONMMEP) held at Bene Suites, Tafawa Balewa Crescent Surulere today, September 22, 2025, in Lagos, Nze Chidiogo Okpara, “in recent years, Cotonou Port in Benin has become a preferred gateway for many importers, even those whose final destination is Nigeria. Several factors explain the shift.
Key Strengths of Cotonou Port
1. More Favorable Tariffs and Charges
Cotonou offers significantly lower duty/tariff regimes for many goods when compared to Nigeria. For example, import duty for cars in Nigeria can run as high as 70%, whereas in Benin it is about 10%.
Transit cargo destined for Nigeria often costs much less through Cotonou. Nigerian importers are sometimes granted rebates or reduced charges in Benin for transit or clearance.
2. Better Clearance, Less Bureaucracy, Faster Turnaround
Nze Okpara report that Cotonou has more predictable customs-clearing processes with fewer delays, less congestion, and fewer of the multiplicity of regulatory agencies that plague ports in Nigeria.
The roads and transport linkages in and out of Cotonou are viewed as more manageable for transit traffic, with less time lost to gridlock than in Lagos/Apapa.
3. Strategic Transit Hub Role
Cotonou handles not just Benin’s own trade but increasingly large volumes of Nigerian‑bound cargo. Some policy settings in Nigeria force or incentivize importers to use neighboring ports. For example, certain regulatory requirements (such as aspects of Form M) make direct import via Nigerian ports less straightforward.
The port’s expansion (both physical infrastructure and administrative facilities) is being supported by external financing (AfDB, etc.), strengthening its capacity.
4. Lower Hidden / Ancillary Costs
Though headline tariffs are important, importers care about additional costs: demurrage (costs for delayed container pick up), off‑terminal transport delays, informal fees, poor service quality. Cotonou seems to offer lower total landed cost for many importers once all factors are added.
5. Policy Consistency and Incentives
Benin has in some cases deliberately offered incentives to Nigerian importers (discounted clearance, rebates, simpler regulations) to capture transit cargo.
Benin’s port modernization plans and clearer governance in some respects have attracted private actors and foreign partners (e.g., Antwerp Port Authority involvement to upgrade Cotonou) to improve operations.
Weaknesses / Challenges of Cotonou That Temper Its Advantages
Of course, it is not all perfect. Cotonou still faces limitations:
Infrastructure constraints: Older facilities may still need modernization. There are capacity limits, especially if growth continues rapidly.
Logistics and hinterland delivery: Though clearance might be faster, moving goods from Cotonou into Nigeria involves transport and risk, especially over land or border formalities. Smuggling and cross‐border leakages are concerns.
Congestion risks as more traffics divert to Cotonou: if demand outpaces infrastructure and staffing, delays may increase, offsetting some of the current advantages.
The Nigerian Ports: Strengths, But Fraught with Challenges
Nigeria possesses natural advantages and some recent steps for improvement. But many of its ports are held back by structural, institutional, and policy issues.
Strengths
Geographic and Market Size: Nigeria remains the largest market in West Africa. Proximity to major consumer markets, industrial centres, and high import volumes give it potential economies of scale.
Large Number of Ports and Deep Water Ports: Nigeria has multiple ports (Apapa, Tin-Can, Onne, etc.), and projects like Lekki Deep Sea Port aim to expand capacity and allow larger vessels.
Recent Investments: There is interest from foreign investors (e.g. Maersk etc.) to invest in upgrading port infrastructure.
Key Challenges
1. High Tariffs, Charges, and Hidden Costs
Import duties and levies in Nigeria are often much higher, especially on vehicles. Combined with multiple charges (terminal charges, freight forwarding, agency fees) and fees from overlapping government agencies, the total cost becomes very burdensome.
The difference in cost for a 40‑foot container: Nigerian ports may charge N16,000,000 while Cotonou might charge N9,000, 000 for similar services.
2. Bureaucracy, Policy Instability and Regulatory Overlaps
Clearance processes often involve multiple government agencies with overlapping functions. Delays arise from duplicative inspections, inconsistent enforcement, unpredictable changes in policy.
Foreign exchange instability: by the time goods arrive, the cost can rise because of changes in currency rates if import duties or fees are tied to official or parallel rates.
3. Infrastructure Deficits & Congestion
Road networks to/from ports are often poor, leading to long delays, high transport costs. Apapa, arguably the busiest, is notorious for congestion and road issues.
Some ports in Nigeria are under‑utilised or neglected (eastern ports, smaller ports) because of shallow draft, lack of modern cargo handling equipment, weak maintenance, poor servicing facilities for vessels.
4. Corruption, Informal Charges, and Hidden Delays
Reports are frequent that illegal or unregulated fees, delays caused by corruption or extortion, affect total cost and predictability.
The multiplicity of checkpoints, manual documentation, non‑transparent or changeable policies increase the risk margin for traders.
Policy Contradictions & Double Standards: What Nigeria Says vs What It Does
Nigeria often articulates goals (both in political rhetoric and policy documents) of boosting exports, becoming more competitive, creating efficient ports, attracting regional transit trade, and playing a leading role in AfCFTA and West African trade corridors. But several contradictions and double standards undermine these ambitions:
1. Protectionism vs Trade Facilitation
On one hand, Nigeria introduces high import tariffs, heavy levies, and restrictive policies (e.g. VIN valuation, Form M requirements) that raise cost and dissuade use of Nigerian ports. These are intended to protect domestic industries, generate revenue, or regulate imports.
On the other, the same or similar importers are penalized by delays, bottlenecks, and heavy cost burden, so they avoid Nigerian ports altogether, which undermines the protective intent.
2. Policy for “local content” but disadvantaged local actors
Indigenous shipowners often suffer from unfavorable duty regimes, poorer access to financing, and stiff competition from foreign operators who benefit from more favorable importation of spare parts or vessels. This undermines efforts to develop Nigeria’s maritime capacity.
For example, Nigerian shipowners are required to pay import duties on vessels/spare parts (as high as ~14% in some cases), whereas airlines or foreign operators may in effect get more favorable treatment.
3. Promises of Infrastructure Upgrades vs Slow Implementation
The government often announces plans: building new ports, expanding existing ones, modernizing systems, deploying digital trade facilitation tools. But implementation tends to lag, or policies are changed before earlier ones settled.
In contrast, Benin seems to follow through more steadily on certain reforms (clearance, incentives) that improve competitiveness.
4. Revenue Generation vs Trade Losses
Nigerian authorities often prioritize customs and port revenue generation via levies, duties, import taxes. But the high cost and inefficiency discourage trade volume, cause importers to route via other ports, which in aggregate leads to revenue loss. E.g., estimates exist that Nigeria loses billions annually because cargo destined for Nigeria is cleared first in neighbouring ports before coming overland or smuggled.
So while on paper policies are meant to raise revenue and protect domestic interests, in practice they may disincentivize formal trade and reduce the overall tax base.
5. Inconsistent Enforcement & Unequal Treatment
Some importers or cargo lines with connections may get faster clearance or favorable deals; small importers, transit operators, or local shipowners may be more harshly burdened.
Regulatory changes may come without sufficient notice or clarity, meaning businesses cannot plan or adapt, which increases risk and encourages shift to less regulated neighbouring ports.
Implications & What Nigeria Must Do
If Nigeria is to reverse the current trend (losing cargo to Cotonou, being seen as less competitive), here are some implications and recommended areas for reform:
Simplify tariff/duty structure; reduce arbitrary or excessively high levies, especially for transit cargo.
Streamline and automate processes to reduce delays; reduce the number of government agencies involved or harmonize their mandates.
Invest more in infrastructure not just in Lagos, but in eastern or under‑utilised ports; improve access roads, dredging, handling equipment.
Support local maritime operators: reduce import duty on vessels/spare parts for local shipowners; ensure equitable policy support.
Improve regulatory consistency: give traders clear, stable rules; minimize policy reversals.
Improve transparency and reduce corruption risk: both through digital systems, fewer manual touchpoints, real‑time tracking, simplified documentation.
Conclusion
Cotonou Port has managed to exploit relative weaknesses in Nigeria’s ports systems by offering lower costs, more reliable and quicker clearance, and more predictable policy frameworks. For Nigeria, the challenge is not just building ports, but making them competitive, transparent, and efficient. Until policy contradictions are resolved, and key infrastructural and bureaucratic hurdles addressed, many Nigerian importers will continue to “vote with their cargo” and favour neighbouring ports like Cotonou.