SAILS WITHOUT SAILORS: ESTIMATING NIGERIA’S LEGAL RESPONSE TO AUTONOMOUS SHIPS AND DIGITAL MARITIME TRADE

INTRODUCTION

International maritime law has long rested upon an unshakable statutory belief: that every vessel navigating the high seas is operated by a physically present human master and manned by a competent crew.¹ The rapid development of Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships (MASS), piloted via land-based Remote Operations Centres (ROCs), alongside paperless trade executed through Electronic Bills of Lading (e-BLs), directly challenges this foundational paradigm.² Maritime commerce underpins Nigeria’s economic engagement in international trade. Yet its primary governing statutes, principally the Merchant Shipping Act (MSA) 2007, the Nigerian Maritime Administration and Safety Agency (NIMASA) Act 2007, and the Evidence Act 2011, remain strictly anchored in traditional seafaring requirements of physical onboard command, human crew thresholds, and paper documentation.³

This statutory gap raises a serious question: how can Nigeria’s domestic legal and regulatory framework adapt to accommodate autonomous vessels and digital trade documentation without compromising maritime safety, jurisdictional enforcement, or commercial certainty? This article argues that Nigeria’s existing statutes create severe legal complications regarding master liability, statutory seaworthiness, and electronic title transfer. Accordingly, enacting targeted statutory revisions and domesticating functional equivalence principles, specifically the UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Transferable Records (MLETR), is imperative to prevent Nigerian maritime trade from becoming legally outdated.⁴

Confined to Nigerian territorial waters, port state enforcement under the Nigerian Ports Authority (NPA), regulatory oversight by NIMASA, and commercial carriage contracts under the Hamburg Rules, this study proceeds in five parts.⁵ Section I examines the central statutory framework, assessing the definitions of “ship,” “master,” “crew,” and “seaworthiness” alongside the evidentiary rules governing e-BLs. Section II examines Nigerian judicial precedents on carrier liability, admiralty jurisdiction, and computer-generated evidence. Section III critiques regulatory gaps in remote operator liability, strict manning obligations, and digital title transfer. Section IV compares Nigeria’s posture against international instruments and proactive jurisdictions, culminating in Section V’s legislative reform roadmap.

Section I: Statutory Framework and Definitional Constructs in Nigerian Maritime Law

An analysis of Nigeria’s statutory framework governing maritime carriage reveals a fundamental structural divergence between its two primary enabling statutes. Unlike the NIMASA Act 2007, which consolidates key legal terms within a single interpretation clause,⁶ the MSA 2007 contains no single, consolidated interpretation section defining all foundational maritime terms. Instead, the MSA 2007 distributes its definitional clauses across distinct Parts, each containing its own specialised interpretation section.⁷ Consequently, determining the precise statutory meaning of “ship,” “master,” “crew,” and “seaworthiness” requires synthesising disparate provisions across both enactments.

1. “Ship” and “Vessel”

Under Section 64 of the NIMASA Act 2007, a “ship” is defined broadly as including “every description of vessel used in navigation.”⁸ This is accompanied by the statutory definition of “vessel” under the same section, which encompasses:“…any kind of vessel that is used, or capable of being used, in navigation by water, however propelled or moved, and includes (a) a barge, lighter, floating platforms, restaurant or other floating vessel; and an air-cushion vehicle; or (b) other similar craft that is used in navigation by water.”⁹

By contrast, the most comprehensive definition of “ship” within the MSA 2007 appears under Section 361(1) in Part XXVI (Wrecks):“…a vessel of any type whatsoever operating in the marine environment and includes hydrofoil boats, air-cushion vehicles, submersibles, floating craft, and fixed or floating platforms or mobile offshore units when such platforms or units are not on location engaged in the exploration, exploitation, storage or production of sea-bed mineral resources.”¹⁰

This provision explicitly carves out fixed or floating platforms and mobile offshore units, subjecting them to ship status only when they are not actively engaged in seabed mineral exploration or production. Furthermore, the MSA 2007 defines “vessel” contextually across separate Parts. Section 338 defines a vessel for collision purposes as “any ship, craft, machine, rig or platform whether capable of navigation or not which is involved in a collision,”¹¹ whereas Section 387 restricts “vessel” for salvage claims to “any ship or craft or structure capable of navigation.”¹²

2. “Master”

Neither enactment defines “master” within a general standalone interpretation clause. Instead, the term is defined operationally by reference to command function. Section 64 of the NIMASA Act 2007 does not define “master” directly, but its definition of “seafarers” expressly excludes masters and pilots.¹³ The statutory framework thereby establishes the master as a distinct, superior category standing outside ordinary seafarers.

The MSA 2007 refers to the master pervasively as the officer in command of the vessel.¹⁴ The statute imposes direct duties and statutory liabilities upon the master, including the execution of crew agreements,¹⁵ criminal liability for dispatching an unseaworthy vessel to sea,¹⁶ and receipt of statutory detention orders.¹⁷ Crucially, Section 83(1)(d) mandates that every vessel must remain under the charge of a “properly certificated master.”¹⁸ The operative statutory standard aligns with the common law: the master is the certificated individual possessing physical command and charge of the vessel.

3. “Crew”

Under Section 64 of the NIMASA Act 2007, crew structure is captured through the interrelation of “Maritime Labour” (dockworkers and seafarers) and “Seafarers” (all individuals engaged on board excluding the master and pilots).¹⁹ In the MSA 2007, “crew” is deployed throughout Part IX (Employment of Seamen).²⁰ Section 94(2)(e) requires crew agreements to specify the “number and description of the crew, specifying how many are engaged as sailors,”²¹ while Section 96 governs agreements for sea-going vessels.²² The crew is thus defined operationally as the body of seamen bound by formal service agreements under the master’s command.

4. “Seaworthiness”

Both statutes construct the standard of seaworthiness by defining its functional inverse, the “unsafe ship,” and by establishing statutory implied obligations.

Section 281(1) of the MSA 2007 imports into every service contract between a shipowner and a master or seaman an implied obligation that the owner, master, and agents:“…shall use all reasonable means to ensure the seaworthiness of the ship for the voyage at the time when the voyage commences, and to keep it in a seaworthy condition during the voyage.”²³

This establishes a continuous duty extending beyond voyage commencement, subject to a statutory defence under Section 281(2) where sending an unseaworthy vessel to sea was reasonable under special circumstances. Section 282(1) defines an “unsafe ship” as one where defects in hull, equipment, or machinery, improper loading, or under-manning render the vessel “unfit to proceed to sea without serious danger to human life.” Section 280 penalises sending a Nigerian ship to sea in an unseaworthy state likely to endanger life.

Section 40(1) of the NIMASA Act 2007 mirrors this structure by empowering the Agency to detain any unsafe ship rendered unfit to proceed to sea due to equipment condition, under-manning, or improper loading.²⁴ Section 40(3) explicitly mandates compliance with international safety instruments, including the ISM and ISPS Codes. Under Nigerian law, a ship is seaworthy when it is fit in hull, equipment, and manning to navigate without serious danger to human life.

5. The Autonomous Shipping Paradox: Statutory Friction with MASS

When applied to MASS, these statutory definitions reveal a severe regulatory mismatch. While “ship” under Section 64 of the NIMASA Act (“used in navigation, however propelled”) encompasses an autonomous hull, the MSA 2007 leaves open whether a purely land-controlled craft satisfies registration requirements without a physical helm.²⁵

More critically, Section 83(1)(d) of the MSA 2007 requires every ship to be under the charge of a “properly certificated master,” while Section 64 of the NIMASA Act treats the master as a distinct physical person on board. Under current Nigerian law, a land-based ROC controller cannot legally qualify as a “master,” creating a statutory breach whenever an autonomous vessel enters Nigerian territorial waters.²⁶

Finally, Section 282(1)(c) of the MSA 2007 and Section 40(1)(b) of the NIMASA Act classify any vessel suffering from “under-manning” as an unsafe ship, rendering it unseaworthy per se.²⁷ Because Nigerian law measures manning by physical crew counts under STCW standards, a fully autonomous vessel (Degree 4 MASS) is legally presumed unseaworthy the moment it sails.

6. Digital Trade Infrastructure: Status of Electronic Bills of Lading and Evidence

Modern shipping relies on paperless trade, smart contracts, and e-BLs. A traditional bill of lading performs three functions: it is a receipt for goods loaded, evidence of the contract of carriage, and a negotiable document of title transferring constructive possession.²⁸ While transitioning the first two functions to digital records is straightforward, replicating title transfer within Nigeria’s statutory framework presents profound legal obstacles.²⁹

The statutory foundation for admitting digital records in Nigerian litigation is Section 84 of the Evidence Act 2011 (as amended). Under Section 84(2), the tendering party must establish regular computer use and operational integrity.³⁰ Section 84(4) mandates a signed Certificate of Authentication detailing device operational conditions. Compliance with Section 84 is strictly mandatory; non-compliance renders any computer-generated document inadmissible.³¹

However, while Section 84 resolves admissibility, it does not resolve negotiability and title transfer.³² Section 84 merely allows a computer record to be admitted as evidence of a fact; it does not confer the legal character of a negotiable instrument capable of transferring ownership through electronic endorsement. Under Nigeria’s Carriage of Goods by Sea Act³³ and the Hamburg Rules,³⁴ title transfer rests on physical possession, delivery, and manual endorsement. Current statutes lack provisions recognising functional equivalence or exclusive control, which are necessary to treat an electronic record as functionally identical to a paper document of title.³⁵

Nigeria has not domesticated the UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Transferable Records (MLETR) 2017.³⁶ Consequently, while an e-BL may be admitted in a Nigerian court as evidence of carriage under Section 84, its holder cannot conclusively claim the statutory rights of a document of title holder.³⁷

Section II: Judicial Interpretation and Precedent Analysis

Because autonomous ships have not been directly litigated in Nigeria, the applicable framework relies on precedents governing carrier liability, seaworthiness, admiralty jurisdiction, and electronic evidence.³⁸

1. Carrier Liability and Seaworthiness Precedents

In Basinco Motors Ltd v Woermann-Line,³⁹ the Supreme Court affirmed that a bill of lading constitutes the core contract of carriage, imposing an implied statutory duty on the carrier to exercise due diligence to ensure the vessel is seaworthy and properly manned at voyage commencement. Failure to provide a properly equipped and manned vessel breaches the fundamental obligation of carriage.

Applying Basinco Motors to MASS operations exposes a clear judicial challenge.⁴⁰ If an autonomous vessel suffers a collision due to sensor blindness, software latency, or ROC operational failure, Nigerian courts applying traditional standards will test “proper manning” against physical onboard presence. Without statutory amendments establishing functional equivalence, carriers will struggle to rebut the presumption of unseaworthiness.

In Brawal Shipping (Nig) Ltd v FI Onwadike Co Ltd,⁴¹ the Supreme Court held that a carrier remains strictly accountable for cargo loss or damage unless it proves that the damage resulted from an excepted peril not caused by its negligence. In autonomous shipping, establishing causality shifts from evaluating physical human error to auditing software code, satellite links, and automated collision avoidance algorithms. This strict evidentiary burden places severe liability risks on automated vessel carriers in Nigerian waters.

2. Admissibility and Verification of Digital Trade Documents

Procedural rules governing electronic trade documentation are shaped by Section 84 of the Evidence Act. In Dickson v Sylva,⁴² the Supreme Court held that the provisions of Section 84 are mandatory and that compliance must be demonstrated before any computer-generated document can be admitted. The absence of a signed Certificate of Authentication under Section 84(4) renders electronic records inadmissible, reinforcing Kubor v Dickson.⁴³

This imposes onerous conditions on enforcing e-BLs or smart contracts in Nigerian courts.⁴⁴ A foreign carrier seeking to enforce an e-BL issued through a decentralised blockchain network must tender a Section 84 certificate verified by an officer in control of the IT system. In distributed ledger systems where no single entity exercises exclusive control, satisfying Dickson v Sylva poses a formidable procedural barrier.

3. Admiralty Jurisdiction and In Rem Enforcement

Admiralty jurisdiction is vested in the Federal High Court under Section 251(1)(g) of the 1999 Constitution and the Admiralty Jurisdiction Act (AJA) 1991. In N.V. Scheep v MV S. Araz,⁴⁵ the Supreme Court confirmed that a physical vessel represents the res subject to arrest to satisfy maritime claims. An action in rem proceeds directly against the ship, independent of personal service upon the foreign shipowner (in personam).

For autonomous vessels, MV S. Araz confirms that Nigerian courts possess jurisdiction to execute arrest warrants against an uncrewed ship within Nigerian territorial waters. However, procedural friction arises regarding the execution of arrest. Traditional vessel arrest relies on serving physical arrest warrants on the shipmaster or posting notice on the superstructure. On a Degree 4 uncrewed ship, executing service requires updated procedural rules under the Federal High Court Admiralty Jurisdiction Rules. Furthermore, as affirmed in Alraine Shipping Nig. Ltd v Endura Auto Chemicals,⁴⁶ the Federal High Court maintains exclusive jurisdiction over all maritime claims.

Section III: Critical Analysis and Regulatory Gaps

The intersection of Nigeria’s statutory regime and judicial precedents reveals three core regulatory gaps.

1. Re-defining the “Master” and Remote Operations Centres (ROCs)

The primary statutory friction point is the legal status of the shipmaster.⁴⁷ Under the MSA 2007 and domesticated international conventions (SOLAS, COLREGs), the master is assigned non-delegable legal responsibilities, including maintaining a navigational watch, rendering assistance in distress, and exercising ultimate command.⁴⁸

On an autonomous ship operated via a land-based ROC, command is exercised by remote operators or automated software.⁴⁹ Current Nigerian law does not recognise a land-based operator as a “master,” creating two regulatory issues:

1. Jurisdictional Impasse: If an ROC is located in a foreign State (e.g., Singapore) while the vessel navigates Nigerian waters, NIMASA cannot easily enforce statutory master liabilities or penal sanctions under Section 280 MSA against land-based personnel outside territorial reach.⁵⁰
2. Certification Gaps: Section 83 MSA mandates that ships operate under a “properly certificated master.” NIMASA lacks statutory standards to issue or validate competency certificates for land-based remote controllers.⁵¹

2. Navigational Negligence vs. Product Liability

Under traditional maritime law, shipowner liability for collisions and cargo damage is evaluated under vicarious liability for the navigational negligence of the master and crew. The Hamburg Rules establish a presumption of carrier fault for cargo loss. With MASS, legal risk shifts fundamentally.⁵²

1. Product Liability Transition: When an autonomous vessel’s navigation system fails due to software code errors, algorithmic bugs, or sensor corruption, the distinction between maritime navigational negligence and software product liability dissolves.⁵³
2. Cybersecurity Vulnerabilities: Autonomous vessels rely on continuous satellite data, GPS telemetry, and cloud communication links. Cyber-attacks, GPS spoofing, or telecommunication dropouts pose catastrophic risks. It remains legally uncertain under Nigerian law whether a cyber-attack constitutes an “act of public enemies” or an unexcused breach of the carrier’s continuous duty to maintain a seaworthy vessel under Section 281 MSA.⁵⁴

3. Legal Barriers to Smart Contracts and Electronic Bills of Lading (e-BLs)

Nigerian commercial law lacks the architecture required for seamless digital trade.⁵⁵ At common law and under Nigerian statutory law, a document of title transfers constructive possession because physical possession of the document symbolises possession of the cargo.

Electronic records cannot be physically “possessed.”⁵⁶ Instead, digital trade relies on exclusive control verified through cryptographic keys or distributed ledgers.⁵⁷ Because Nigeria has not enacted the UNCITRAL MLETR, Nigerian law does not recognise “control” of an electronic record as the functional equivalent of “possession” of a paper document.⁵⁸ Consequently:

1. An endorsee of an e-BL in Nigeria cannot establish statutory title to sue the carrier under traditional carriage statutes.⁵⁹
2. Automated smart contracts designed to trigger payments or cargo release upon vessel arrival operate in a legal void, leaving parties exposed to title disputes.⁶⁰

Section IV: Comparative Perspectives and International Standards

To resolve these statutory gaps, Nigeria must evaluate emerging international frameworks and foreign jurisdictions.

1. The IMO MASS Code Framework

The International Maritime Organization (IMO) completed a Regulatory Scoping Exercise (RSE) evaluating conventions (SOLAS, COLREGs, STCW) across four degrees of vessel autonomy:⁶¹

Degree 1: Automated processes and decision support (crew on board).

Degree 2: Remotely controlled ship with seafarers on board.

Degree 3: Remotely controlled ship without seafarers on board.

Degree 4: Fully autonomous ship making independent decisions.

The IMO Maritime Safety Committee developed the non-mandatory MASS Code, with the aim of arriving at a mandatory international instrument.⁶² A central principle is that the functional roles traditionally performed by the master and crew must be preserved, whether exercised on board or from a land-based ROC.⁶³

2. UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Transferable Records (MLETR)

Adopted in 2017, the UNCITRAL MLETR provides the global benchmark for paperless trade and is based on three principles:⁶⁴

1. Functional Equivalence: An electronic transferable record satisfies written, paper-based requirements if it contains the necessary substantive information.⁶⁵
2. Technology Neutrality: The law does not favour specific technologies (e.g., registry systems or blockchain/DLT).⁶⁶
3. Exclusive Control Standard: The MLETR replaces physical “possession” with a reliable method establishing “exclusive control” over the electronic record.⁶⁷

3. Foreign Jurisdictional Benchmarks

1. United Kingdom: The UK pioneered the UK Autonomous Systems Maritime Regulatory Framework.⁶⁸ Furthermore, the Electronic Trade Documents Act (ETDA) 2023 incorporates MLETR principles, giving electronic trade documents, including e-BLs, the same legal status as paper counterparts under English law.⁶⁹
2. Singapore: Singapore amended its Electronic Transactions Act to adopt the UNCITRAL MLETR for digital trade documents and smart contracts.⁷⁰ Its Maritime and Port Authority (MPA) established regulatory sandboxes to test autonomous navigation and ROC control protocols within port waters.⁷¹

Section V: Proposed Solutions and Legislative Roadmap for Nigeria

To prevent economic marginalisation as global shipping digitalises, Nigeria requires a clear statutory reform agenda.⁷² The roadmap below summarises the proposed reforms, which are then discussed in turn.

Nigerian Legislative Reform Roadmap

Statutory Amendments	MLETR Domestication	Administrative and Port
Amend MSA and NIMASA Acts (s. 83 and s. 282)	Enact Electronic Transferable Records Act	Establish NIMASA ROC certification unit
Redefine “Master” to include ROCs	Recognise “exclusive control” for e-BLs functional equivalence	Update Federal High Court Admiralty rules for uncrewed arrests
Re-frame manning requirements

1. Targeted Statutory Amendments to the MSA 2007 and NIMASA Act 2007

The National Assembly, with NIMASA and the Nigerian Law Reform Commission, should enact an Amending Act.⁷³

1. Redefining the “Master”: Amend Section 83 MSA 2007 and Section 64 NIMASA Act 2007 to define a “Master” as any certified individual assigned ultimate responsibility for vessel command and navigation, whether serving on board or controlling the vessel remotely from an approved Remote Operations Centre (ROC).⁷⁴
2. Re-framing “Manning” and Seaworthiness: Amend Section 282(1)(c) MSA 2007 and Section 40(1)(b) NIMASA Act 2007. “Under-manning” must shift from physical onboard crew counts to a functional manning standard, evaluating whether the vessel possesses adequate software systems, automated redundancy, and certified land-based remote monitoring.⁷⁵
3. Statutory Liability for ROC Operators: Extend port state jurisdiction and enforcement over foreign and domestic ROC operators controlling vessels within Nigerian territorial waters.⁷⁶

2. Domestic Enactment of the UNCITRAL MLETR

Nigeria should pass an Electronic Transferable Records Act domesticating the UNCITRAL MLETR.⁷⁷

1. Legal Recognition of e-BLs: Grant electronic bills of lading and digital trade instruments full functional equivalence to paper documents of title.⁷⁸
2. Adopting “Exclusive Control”: Replace physical delivery requirements with cryptographic “exclusive control.”⁷⁹
3. Harmonising the Evidence Act: Amend Section 84 of the Evidence Act 2011 to establish a rebuttable presumption of integrity for digital trade documents issued on verified, cryptographically secure trade platforms.⁸⁰

3. Administrative and Port Infrastructure Modernisation

1. NIMASA ROC Accreditation Framework: NIMASA should establish a MASS Regulatory Unit to certify Remote Operations Centres, setting standards for telemetry links, cybersecurity, and operator licensing.⁸¹
2. Federal High Court Practice Directions: The Chief Judge should issue updated Admiralty Jurisdiction Practice Directions detailing procedural rules for executing in rem arrests on uncrewed vessels and for serving ROC operators electronically.⁸²
3. NPA Smart Port Integration: The Nigerian Ports Authority (NPA) should digitalise customs clearance, Vessel Traffic Services (VTS), and cargo handling to interface with autonomous vessels and smart contracts.⁸³

CONCLUSION

The shift toward Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships (MASS) and paperless trade represents a structural transformation in international maritime commerce.⁸⁴ Nigeria’s statutory architecture, constructed around manual seafaring assumptions, physical onboard masters, and paper documents of title, presents significant legal friction.⁸⁵ Left unaddressed, these barriers risk rendering Nigerian ports legally incompatible with automated global supply chains, exposing shipowners to strict unseaworthiness claims and leaving digital trade documents vulnerable in domestic litigation.⁸⁶

By enacting targeted amendments to the Merchant Shipping Act 2007 and the NIMASA Act 2007, domesticating the UNCITRAL MLETR, and modernising admiralty procedural rules, Nigeria can build a forward-looking legal framework.⁸⁷ Such reforms will safeguard maritime safety and jurisdictional sovereignty while ensuring that Nigeria remains a preferred, commercially efficient destination for global maritime trade in the digital age.⁸⁸

REFERENCE(S):

Primary Sources (Nigeria)

Statutes

• Admiralty Jurisdiction Act 1991, Cap A5, LFN 2004.
• Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, Cap C1, LFN 2004.
• Coastal and Inland Shipping (Cabotage) Act 2003, Cap C51, LFN 2004.
• Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended).
• Evidence Act 2011 (as amended).
• Merchant Shipping Act 2007.
• Nigerian Maritime Administration and Safety Agency (NIMASA) Act 2007.
• Nigerian Ports Authority Act, Cap N126, LFN 2004.
• United Nations Convention on the Carriage of Goods by Sea (Ratification and Enforcement) Act, Cap U1, LFN 2004.

Judicial Precedents

• Alraine Shipping Nig. Ltd v Endura Auto Chemicals (2001) 12 NWLR (Pt 728) 759 (CA).
• Anyaebosi v R.T. Briscoe (Nig) Ltd (1987) 3 NWLR (Pt 59) 84 (SC).
• Basinco Motors Ltd v Woermann-Line (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt 1157) 149 (SC).
• Brawal Shipping (Nig) Ltd v F.I. Onwadike Co. Ltd (2000) 11 NWLR (Pt 678) 387 (SC).
• Dickson v Sylva (2017) 8 NWLR (Pt 1567) 167 (SC).
• Kubor v Dickson (2013) 4 NWLR (Pt 1345) 534 (SC).
• N.V. Scheep v MV S. Araz (2000) 12 NWLR (Pt 682) 677 (SC).

Primary Sources (Foreign and International)

• Singapore Electronic Transactions (Amendment) Act 2021.
• UK Electronic Trade Documents Act 2023.
• International Maritime Organization (IMO), Draft International Code of Safety for MASS (MASS Code).
• International Maritime Organization (IMO), SOLAS 1974.
• International Maritime Organization (IMO), COLREGs 1972.
• International Maritime Organization (IMO), STCW 1978.
• UNCITRAL, Model Law on Electronic Transferable Records (MLETR) 2017.
• United Nations Convention on the Carriage of Goods by Sea (Hamburg Rules) 1978.

Consulted Secondary Sources and Journals

• Anyamele U, ‘Promoting Digitalization of Electronic Trade Documents in Nigeria through MLETR’ (2024) 68 Journal of African Law 1.
• Dremliuga R et al., ‘The Development of the Legal Framework for Autonomous Shipping’ (2021) 14 Journal of Politics and Law 55.
• García-Llave R et al., ‘Autonomous Ships and Flag State: Challenges and Opportunities in International Maritime Law’ (2025) 18 Journal of Transportation Security 112.
• Kepesedi A, ‘Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships: A Critical ‘MASS’ for Legislative Review’ (2023) UNCTAD Transport Newsletter, No. 97.
• UK Maritime Autonomous Systems Regulatory Working Group, Code of Practice (v5, 2021).

FOOTNOTE(S):

1. Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) 1974, Reg V/14; Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea (COLREGs) 1972, Rule 5.
2. Ruth García-Llave & Ors, ‘Autonomous Ships and Flag State: Challenges and Opportunities in International Maritime Law’ (2025) 18 Journal of Transportation Security 112 available online at <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/395327478_Autonomous_ships_and_flag_state_challenges_and_opportunities_in_international_maritime_law_Autonomous_ships_and_flag_state_challenges_and_opportunities_in_international_maritime_law_R_Garcia-Llave_et_> accessed 21st August 2026
3. Merchant Shipping Act (MSA) 2007, s 83; NIMASA Act 2007, s 64; Evidence Act 2011 (as amended), s 84
4. UNCITRAL MLETR 2017, arts 8–11; Uchenna Anyamele, ‘Promoting Digitalization of Electronic Trade Documents in Nigeria through MLETR’ (2024) 68 Journal of African Law 1 available on request at <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/387092576_Promoting_Digitalization_of_Electronic_Trade_Documents_in_Nigeria_through_the_Model_Law_on_Electronic_Transferable_Records> accessed 18th August 2026.
5. United Nations Convention on the Carriage of Goods by Sea (Ratification and Enforcement) Act, Cap U1, LFN 2004
6. NIMASA Act 2007, s 64.
7. See e.g., MSA 2007, ss 289, 338, 361, 387.
8. Ibid n6
9. ibid. n6
10. MSA 2007, s 361(1).
11. ibid, s 338.
12. ibid, s 387.
13. NIMASA Act 2007, s 64.
14. MSA 2007, ss 93, 94, 96, 280, 282.
15. ibid, s 93
16. ibid, s 280(2).
17. ibid, s 282(2)(b).
18. ibid, s 83(1)(d).
19. NIMASA Act 2007, s 64.
20. MSA 2007, Part IX.
21. ibid, s 94(2)(e).
22. ibid, s 96.
23. ibid, s 281(1).
24. NIMASA Act 2007, s 40(1).
25. MSA 2007, s 361(1); García-Llave et al. (n 2) 115.
26. MSA 2007, s 83(1)(d); NIMASA Act 2007, s 64.
27. MSA 2007, s 282(1)(c); NIMASA Act 2007, s 40(1)(b).
28. Basinco Motors Ltd v Woermann-Line (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt 1157) 149 (SC).
29. Anyamele (n 4) 4–6.
30. Evidence Act 2011 (as amended), s 84(2)(a)
31. Dickson v Sylva (2017) 8 NWLR (Pt 1567) 167 (SC).
32. Anyamele (n 4) 8.
33. Cap C1, LFN 2004.
34. Hamburg Rules (Ratification and Enforcement) Act, Cap U1, LFN 2004.
35. UNCITRAL MLETR 2017, art 10.
36. Anyamele (n 4) 12.
37. ibid 14.
38. Admiralty Jurisdiction Act 1991, Cap A5, LFN 2004.
39. (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt 1157) 149 (SC).
40. Argyro Kepesedi, ‘Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships: A Critical ‘MASS’ for Legislative Review’ (2023) UNCTAD Transport Newsletter, No. 97. Available online at <https://unctad.org/news/transport-newsletter-article-no-97-fourth-quarter-2022> accessed 19th August 2026.
41. (2000) 11 NWLR (Pt 678) 387 (SC).
42. (2017) 8 NWLR (Pt 1567) 167 (SC).
43. (2013) 4 NWLR (Pt 1345) 534 (SC).
44. Anyamele (n 4) 9.
45. (2000) 12 NWLR (Pt 682) 677 (SC).
46. (2001) 12 NWLR (Pt 728) 759 (CA).
47. García-Llave & Ors. (n 2) 118.
48. SOLAS 1974, Reg V/14; MSA 2007, s 83.
49. R. Dremliuga & Ors, ‘Legal Framework for Autonomous Shipping’ (2021) 14 Journal of Politics and Law 55. Available at <https://www.vliz.be/imisdocs/publications/54/381654.pdf> accessed 20th August 2026
50. MSA 2007, s 280; García-Llave et al. (n 2) 120.
51. MSA 2007, s 83(1)(d).
52. Kepesedi (n 40).
53. Dremliuga et al. (n 49) 58.
54. MSA 2007, s 281.
55. Anyamele (n 4) 2.
56. UNCITRAL MLETR 2017 Explanatory Note, paras 24–28.
57. UNCITRAL MLETR 2017, art 11.
58. Anyamele (n 4) 7.
59. Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, Cap C1, LFN 2004, s 1.
60. Anyamele (n 4) 15.
61. IMO MSC, Regulatory Scoping Exercise for MASS (MSC.1/Circ.1638, 2021).
62. IMO, Draft International Code of Safety for MASS (MASS Code) (2023).
63. ibid, Reg 4.
64. UNCITRAL MLETR 2017, Preamble.
65. ibid, art 8.
66. ibid, art 7.
67. ibid, art 10
68. UK MAS Regulatory Working Group, Code of Practice (v5, 2021).
69. UK Electronic Trade Documents Act 2023, s 2.
70. Singapore Electronic Transactions (Amendment) Act 2021, s 16A.
71. MPA Singapore, Circular on MASS Regulatory Sandbox Operations (2022).
72. Anyamele (n 4) 18.
73. MSA 2007, s 83; NIMASA Act 2007, s 64.
74. MSA 2007, s 83(1)(d); NIMASA Act 2007, s 64.
75. García-Llave et al. (n 2) 125.
76. ibid 128.
77. Anyamele (n 4) 20.
78. UNCITRAL MLETR 2017, art 8.
79. ibid, art 10.
80. Evidence Act 2011, s 84.
81. UK MAS Code of Practice (n 76) 12.
82. Admiralty Jurisdiction Act 1991, s 5; MV S. Araz (n 51).
83. Nigerian Ports Authority Act, Cap N126, LFN 2004, s 7.
84. Kepesedi (n 40).
85. MSA 2007, ss 83, 282; NIMASA Act 2007, ss 40, 64.
86. Anyamele (n 4) 22.
87. UNCITRAL MLETR 2017; MSA 2007, s 83.
88. Kepesedi (n 40).