The Nigerian Maritime Administration and Safety Agency (NIMASA) has raised concerns over lapses in the communication of maritime security incidents, warning that Port Facility Security Officers (PFSOs) who fail to comply with approved reporting procedures could face regulatory sanctions.
The agency said some security reports originating from port facilities were being sent directly to individual officials instead of passing through the designated department responsible for receiving and processing such information.
It warned that the practice could create gaps in security monitoring, delay necessary responses and undermine the effective implementation of international standards governing the protection of ships and port infrastructure.
The development has prompted the agency to issue a fresh directive requiring all Port Facility Security Officers to submit reports of security breaches, suspicious activities and other maritime-related incidents through the officially recognised email channel of its International Ship and Port Facility Security (ISPS) Code Unit.
NIMASA stressed that compliance with the reporting arrangement was not optional, noting that the use of unauthorised communication channels could amount to a breach of established maritime security requirements.
The directive was communicated in a notice signed by Mudi Isa, Head of the ISPS Code Unit, with the title, “Non-Receipt of Incident Reports/Submission to Approved ISPS Unit.”
In the notice, the agency disclosed that its designated unit had not been receiving some incident reports expected from port facilities, raising questions about whether security-related information was consistently reaching the appropriate authorities.
The agency expressed concern that reports might be considered submitted by the originating facilities even when they had not reached the department officially assigned to receive them.
According to NIMASA, sending reports to the personal email addresses of individual members of staff does not constitute compliance with the approved procedure unless prior authorisation has been obtained.
The agency consequently directed all PFSOs to discontinue the practice and ensure that future submissions are channelled through the recognised ISPS Unit email address.
24-hour acknowledgment requirement
Beyond directing officers to use the appropriate communication channel, NIMASA has also drawn attention to the need for confirmation that submitted reports have been successfully received.
Under the instruction, officers are expected to contact the ISPS Unit by telephone if they fail to receive an acknowledgment within 24 hours of sending an incident report.
The requirement is intended to prevent situations where important security information remains unattended because of communication failures, incorrect email addresses or other transmission-related problems.
NIMASA explained that officers should not assume that a report has reached the relevant department simply because it has been sent from their end.
The agency wants port security personnel to establish that their submissions have arrived at the appropriate destination and take immediate steps to resolve any uncertainty surrounding delivery.
It further advised PFSOs who are unsure about the correct email address or authorised reporting directory to contact the ISPS Unit for clarification before submitting their correspondence.
The clarification, according to the agency, would help prevent further communication breakdowns and ensure that reports are directed to the officials responsible for handling maritime security matters.
Focus on international port security standards
The directive is closely connected to the International Ship and Port Facility Security Code, commonly known as the ISPS Code, which provides an international framework for identifying and addressing security threats to ships and port facilities.
The framework requires effective security arrangements, including the identification of potential threats, information sharing and appropriate measures to protect maritime operations against security-related risks.
For Nigeria, compliance with these requirements remains important because ports serve as major gateways for international commerce, cargo movement and other maritime activities.
Any weakness in the communication of security incidents could affect the ability of relevant authorities to identify emerging threats and coordinate appropriate responses.
By insisting that reports pass through a centralised and authorised department, NIMASA appears determined to strengthen its monitoring structure and ensure that relevant information is available to the officials responsible for maritime security oversight.
The agency specifically emphasised the importance of prompt reporting whenever unusual activities or security-related developments are detected within port facilities.
It stated that protecting port infrastructure and ensuring the safety of vessels require the active participation of maritime operators, terminal users and personnel working across the sector.
The agency’s position is that security incidents cannot be effectively managed when information is scattered across individual communication channels without proper coordination.
Maritime stakeholders face renewed compliance expectations
NIMASA has therefore called on port operators, terminal users and other maritime stakeholders to take the instruction seriously and ensure that their security personnel understand the approved reporting requirements.
The agency wants all concerned parties to make proper communication an integral part of their security responsibilities rather than treating incident reporting as a routine administrative exercise.
The directive also places additional responsibility on Port Facility Security Officers to ensure that reports are accurately directed, successfully delivered and acknowledged by the appropriate department.
Although the notice did not identify particular port facilities or officers responsible for the reporting lapses, its warning signals the agency’s intention to address non-compliance with established procedures.
The possibility of sanctions also underscores the seriousness with which NIMASA views the handling of security information across the country’s maritime facilities.
For operators, the immediate priority will be to verify their reporting contacts, familiarise relevant personnel with the approved communication process and ensure that incidents are promptly reported through the correct channel.
NIMASA maintained that the measures were necessary to protect the integrity of port operations, improve coordination and safeguard vessels and maritime infrastructure.
The agency expects all stakeholders to comply with the directive immediately, warning that bypassing the recognised reporting structure could attract consequences under applicable maritime security requirements.
The latest instruction reinforces the importance of reliable information flow in the maritime industry, where delays or failures in communicating security threats could affect the ability of authorities to respond effectively.
About The Author
