Controversy Trails BUA Chairman’s Allegation Over Port Harcourt Terminal Closure

Recent comments made by the Chairman of BUA Group, Alhaji Abdul Samad Rabiu, have stirred debate regarding the revocation of his company’s concession at the Rivers Port Terminal B in Port Harcourt. In a widely circulated article, the industrialist praised the Tinubu administration’s efforts to improve Nigeria’s business environment but alleged that a former Nigerian Ports Authority (NPA) boss “woke up one morning and shut down” BUA’s terminal operations without warning.

This claim has drawn swift reactions from sources familiar with the long-running dispute, who insist that the BUA Group had been in breach of its contractual obligations for nearly a decade and had received multiple official warnings prior to the revocation of the concession.

BUA Ports and Terminal Limited entered into a 20-year concession agreement with the NPA on May 11, 2006, granting the company operational control over Terminal B at the Rivers Port. According to the terms of the agreement, BUA was required to commence full reconstruction of Berths 5 to 8 within 90 days of taking over the facility, which occurred on August 10, 2006.

However, by 2016—ten years after taking possession—BUA had reportedly not begun the mandated reconstruction work. This failure led the NPA to issue multiple warnings and a formal notice of default.

Documents cited by sources close to the matter reveal that BUA received several notices concerning its non-compliance. These included:

• A letter dated May 19, 2014, highlighting the delay in reconstruction.
• A follow-up communication on February 3, 2016.
• A final Notice of Default issued on February 11, 2016, citing BUA’s failure to commence rehabilitation of the berths as agreed.

The 2016 notice, titled “Non-compliance with the reconstruction of Berths 5-8 in line with your terminal development plan as contained in your lease agreement,” referenced earlier correspondence and indicated the NPA’s growing frustration with what it considered a deliberate neglect of contractual responsibilities.

Importantly, this final warning was issued before the tenure of the NPA Managing Director whom Alhaji Rabiu appeared to be referencing in his statement.

In his recent article, Rabiu stated:

“We woke up to a letter stating that the concession had been revoked. There was no prior warning, no issue, no conflict.”

But NPA insiders strongly dispute this version of events. “This was not an arbitrary shutdown,” one official told reporters. “BUA had nearly ten years to fulfil a critical part of its concession agreement. Numerous warnings were given—some even before the current leadership assumed office. The decision was based on documented breaches.”

The exchange has generated mixed reactions across Nigeria’s business and maritime sectors. While many stakeholders commended the Tinubu administration for promoting economic reforms, others have called for more transparency in the enforcement of government contracts.

Some analysts note that the dispute highlights a broader challenge in Nigeria’s concession system: a lack of consistent enforcement and mutual accountability. “What this case shows is the importance of honouring the terms of public-private partnerships,” said Dr. Musa Ibrahim, a public policy expert. “Both sides must act in good faith—and when they don’t, the facts must be clearly communicated to avoid misinformation.”

Neither the NPA nor BUA Group has issued a formal press statement in response to the current controversy. However, industry observers say the matter underscores the need for clear communication and documentation in government-business dealings.

As the Tinubu administration continues its drive to improve Nigeria’s investment climate, the importance of transparency, due process, and contract enforcement is expected to remain a top priority for regulators and private operators alike.