The Wharf Landing Fee in Lagos: Legal Duty of Payment and Constitutional Questions

The Wharf Landing Fee, introduced by the Lagos State House of Assembly in 2009, remains one of the most debated levies in Nigeria’s maritime sector. The law requires importers, exporters, or their clearing agents to pay a fee on goods transported out of the ports at Apapa and Tin Can Island. Truck drivers often find themselves pressured to pay, but legally, the obligation rests on the importer or exporter. The stated purpose of the fee is to generate revenue for road maintenance, particularly to address damage caused by heavy-duty vehicles.

Despite this justification, the fee raises serious constitutional questions. Under the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, customs duties and port charges fall squarely within the exclusive legislative competence of the Federal Government (Items 36 and 62 of the Exclusive Legislative List). This means that states cannot impose levies that duplicate or interfere with federal taxation. In A.G. Lagos State v. A.G. Federation (2014) LPELR-22701(SC), the Supreme Court emphasized that where the Constitution grants exclusive powers to the Federal Government, states cannot legislate to override or duplicate those powers. Similarly, in A.G. Ogun State v. Aberuagba (1985) 1 NWLR (Pt. 3) 395, the Court held that international trade and commerce are matters reserved for federal regulation.

By analogy, the Wharf Landing Fee appears to encroach on federal jurisdiction. Critics argue that it amounts to double taxation, since importers and exporters already pay customs duties, port charges, and other administrative fees. Supporters of the law, however, insist that it is not a customs duty but a road maintenance levy, designed to address the peculiar challenges Lagos faces as the gateway for most of Nigeria’s imports.

The practical implications are significant. Importers and exporters bear the financial burden, while truckers are often wrongly compelled to pay at checkpoints. Local governments benefit from the revenue, but the legality of the fee remains unsettled. Unless the courts definitively rule on its constitutionality, businesses will continue to face uncertainty and additional costs.

Ultimately, the Wharf Landing Fee highlights the tension between state efforts to raise revenue and the supremacy of federal law in regulating international trade. Until clarity is provided, stakeholders will continue to ask: why pay yet another levy when existing federal charges already cover the same purpose?

Wriiten by,
Temilorun F. Komolafe ESQ
ACIARB, MIMA (CERT), LLM (UK)
Principal at Amas and Rhod law