The management of INTELS Nigeria Limited has kicked against the termination of its Pilotage Agency Agreement by the Nigerian Ports Authority by the President Muhammadu Buhari-led federal government. INTELS said the termination of the agreement was “clearly preposterous and the consequences highly injurious” to the interests of the country. It said in a letter signed by its Director, Silvano Bellinato,and addressed to the Managing Director, NPA, “With reference to your letter received on October 10, 2017, allegedly terminating the agency agreement between Nigerian Ports Authority and INTELS Nigeria Limited, we formally contest the contents of the same for the reasons stated below: that the Nigerian Ports Authority acknowledged a debt towards INTELS Nigeria Limited in the sum of $674,767,415.00 (in addition to the interests accrued in the meantime); the NPA communicated the need to reconcile the sum of $109,000,000.00 for the additional works carried out; and the NPA informed INL about the implementation to be discussed in respect of a ‘transit account’ called the NPA Service Boat Revenue Collection Account domiciled at one of the banks indicated by you and the related standard operating procedures.” Related: FG Terminates NPA’s Pilotage Agreement With Atiku's Company, Intels It added, “The NPA confirmed 28 per cent agency commission to INL and the 72 per cent balance to be shared between the NPA and INL in the ratio 30:70. On March 27, 2017, we replied to every point in your letter of 15th of March as stated below: The INL took note of NPA’s acknowledgement of debt; the INL declared availability to meet the NPA in order to discuss the details for the certification of the $109,000,000.00 for the additional works carried out; and the INL requested for postponement of the SOP application. The company also said TSA was not part of the existing agency agreement between the parties as raised as one of the reasons for the termination. INTELS said the decision of the NPA to terminate the agreement, which was totally unexpected in consideration of the meetings held by the parties and exchange of letters, was clearly preposterous and the consequences highly injurious to the interests of the company.