By Ibegbulem, Dike Justin
International maritime arbitration has become a globally recognized species of international commercial arbitration. It cuts across maritime, admiralty and arbitration laws. There is no gainsaying the fact that in the past three decades, Nigeria has taken remarkable steps towards modernizing its admiralty and arbitration laws, particularly by signing up to major international Conventions. Yet, facts show that at present, Nigeria is still rarely selected (either as lex arbitri or as locus arbitri) in contemporary standard form contracts for international carriage of goods by sea. Equally perturbing is the fact that the foremost maritime arbitration body in Nigeria i.e. the Maritime Arbitrators Association of Nigeria; is also seldom selected as an arbitral body in most standard form contracts. Verifiable facts also show that since its establishment, instead of attracting more referrals, the Association has been increasingly losing briefs to its foreign-based counterparts. This study set out to investigate these challenges. Previously, two key factors were vaguely identified as responsible for this perceived global antipathy for ‘made-in-Nigeria’ maritime arbitration, namely – the uncertainty ¬arising from legislative and judicial policy conflicts over the validity of foreign arbitration agreements due to their presumed nullification by section 20 of the Admiralty Jurisdiction Act; and over whether the enforceability of such clauses should be subjected to discretionary treatment by the courts, pursuant to section 5 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. This study further investigates the above policy conflicts, and methodically identifies other possible underlying areas of policy conflicts that may also be responsible for the antipathy. The methodology adopted was doctrinal and comparative with a focus on Singapore, because it is a Commonwealth country like Nigeria; as well as the leading maritime arbitration hub in Asia. Reliance was on primary and secondary sources of data. Statutes and case law provided the major primary source of data, while secondary source of data relied on include published works, scholarly papers, opinions of experts etc. In all, the work explains how in Singapore, prompt and proactive revision of extant laws, judicial specialization, and regulation of multimodal transport operations (or combined transport shipment) have collectively promoted policy consistency and enhanced the country’s international acceptability; whilst the reverse is the case in Nigeria. The study concludes for the repeal of the 1926 COGSA; judicial specialization in the Federal High Court along with establishment of a specialized Admiralty court in Nigeria distinct from the Federal High Court; the codification of the ground rules relating to multimodal or combined transport shipment - a burgeoning aspect of Nigeria’s admiralty jurisprudence; and the establishment of a standard arbitration clause for Maritime Arbitrators Association of Nigeria. Finally, the study recommends the revision of Nigeria’s Constitution along with some extant statutes on admiralty and arbitration.