The proposed Liberia Sea and Land Port Regulatory Act, currently under consideration by the Liberian House of Representatives, has sparked significant controversy due to potential conflicts of interest, regulatory overlap, and fiscal burdens. Policy expert Ambulah Mamey has criticized the Act, arguing that it threatens to increase business costs at Liberian ports, create governance confusion, and damage the country’s maritime standing. The central point of contention lies in Section 48 of the proposed Act, which grants the new regulatory agency the authority to engage in commercial port operations. This provision, Mamey argues, creates a fundamental conflict of interest by allowing the regulator to also be a player in the market, effectively making them both referee and player in the same game. This practice contradicts established best practices and Liberia’s own precedent in other sectors, such as telecommunications, petroleum, and energy, where regulatory and commercial functions are clearly separated.
Mamey draws a parallel to the ongoing Senate hearings regarding the Liberia Petroleum Refinery Company (LPRC), which is under scrutiny for similarly acting as both regulator and operator in the petroleum sector. He points out the irony of the Senate simultaneously attempting to prevent such a conflict of interest in the petroleum sector while creating one within the maritime sector. The historical trend of reforms in Liberia’s state-owned enterprises has consistently aimed to separate regulatory oversight from commercial activities to ensure accountability and transparency. This separation of powers creates checks and balances that are vital for healthy competition and effective governance. The proposed Port Regulatory Act deviates from this established model, potentially jeopardizing the integrity and efficiency of the Liberian seaport sector.
Beyond conflicts of interest, the proposed Act also generates concerns regarding overlapping mandates with the existing Liberia Maritime Authority (LiMA). Mamey identifies several functions, including the enforcement of international maritime conventions and setting standards for maritime training, that are already handled by LiMA and are duplicated in the new Act. This redundancy raises concerns about domestic and international confusion regarding jurisdictional authority and could lead to conflicting directives, hindering effective maritime governance. The potential for confusion among international maritime bodies could tarnish Liberia’s reputation and complicate its interactions with international organizations.
Further compounding the problems with the proposed Act is the proposed funding mechanism, which Mamey warns will impose an unnecessary financial burden on the government, strain the port authority, and ultimately increase costs for consumers. The Act proposes funding the new agency through budget allocations, additional port user fees, and a 10% levy on port operator revenues. Mamey argues that this model will inevitably increase the cost of imported goods, impacting ordinary Liberians who rely heavily on imports. He highlights the fact that this funding structure deviates from the standard practice in other African countries, where port regulatory functions typically reside within existing maritime authorities.
Mamey provides a comparative analysis of port governance models across fourteen African nations, including Nigeria, Ghana, Kenya, Sierra Leone, and Senegal. His analysis reveals that these countries maintain regulatory oversight within their maritime authorities while allowing port authorities to manage commercial operations. Even in South Africa, which does have a dedicated port regulatory agency, commercial management of ports remains separate, ensuring efficiency. Mamey cites the World Bank’s Port Reform Toolkit, which advises against excessive regulation and emphasizes the importance of independent oversight to foster competition and avoid bureaucratic bottlenecks. He argues that the proposed Act contradicts this established wisdom, potentially stifling innovation and hindering the effectiveness of Liberian ports.
Mamey’s memo urges the Liberian Legislature to reconsider the creation of a new regulatory agency and instead focus on strengthening existing institutions. He advocates for modernizing the National Port Authority’s Act, aligning it with global best practices, and operationalizing the stalled Single Window Initiative. This initiative, he argues, would streamline port transactions, reducing costs and improving efficiency. His central message is that reform should prioritize efficiency and avoid unnecessary bureaucracy, which conflicts with the principles of good governance. He calls on the legislature to redirect its efforts towards initiatives that directly benefit Liberians, such as investments in health, education, and road infrastructure, rather than creating new layers of bureaucracy that could ultimately harm the economy and burden consumers. Mamey emphasizes the need for a more strategic and efficient approach to port governance, one that leverages existing institutions and avoids unnecessary duplication of functions and costs.
