"If information to hand is anything to go by, there are more worrying concerns in addition to the aforementioned. The attackers are reported to have donned Guinean military fatigues to carry out their attacks. It is unclear whether the attackers were indeed Guinean military personnel or mere robbers camouflaging as such."
By Patrick Hassan-Morlai, London, UK.
It raises concerns to learn that in recent weeks, individuals dressed in Guinean military fatigue attacked Chinese and other fishing vessels in or near Sierra Leone territorial waters, causing substantial loss to those vessels. As Sierra Leone recovers from it decade or so long civil war, no aspects of its recovery should be subject to any impediment. If fishing agencies feel unsecured, this might not only put off investors in this sector of our economy but would also deny our people the opportunity to maintain or secure gainful employment within the fishing industry. Of course, our government as well would not be able to realise its projected revenue in the form of licences and taxes from this industry. Every step necessary to stamp out this attempt to stifle our country’s economic recovery must be considered.
If information to hand is anything to go by, there are more worrying concerns in addition to the aforementioned. The attackers are reported to have donned Guinean military fatigues to carry out their attacks. It is unclear whether the attackers were indeed Guinean military personnel or mere robbers camouflaging as such. Inasmuch as this element of the equation cannot be ascertained, suffice to say that if the attackers were indeed Guinean personnel and were on a lawful hot pursuit, there is no reason why they should not have contacted the maritime authority in Sierra Leone. To fail to do so, suggests, though circumstantially, that the attackers might not be authorised Guinean military personnel.
Another worrying concern is the report that the attackers carried out their attacks in the glaring watch of officials of the Sierra Leone Navy. Would it be that the attackers were indeed Sierra Leoneans in connivance with Navy officials set to loot fishing vessels of their labour? Remember the coinage “sobels”? We are not going back to those days, are we? What has the Sierra Leone maritime authority or the Ministry of Transport and Communications done about the alleged pirate attacks? With such speculations, there are always more questions than answers. However, one thing is clear, that Sierra Leone has both obligation and power to do something about attacks on ships in our territorial waters or adjacent high seas.
Like slavery, piracy is one of a few international criminal offences, which every state has an interest and duty to prosecute in its domestic courts under the concept of universal jurisdiction. This developed from uniform state practice over the years, hence referred to as a customary norm of international law. Accordingly, if the attacks on Chinese and other fishing vessels occurred in the adjacent high seas along our coastline whether by Guineans or not, indubitably, Sierra Leone has an obligation and power to bring those attackers to justice.
On the other hand, if those attacks took place in our territorial waters, they are not pirate attacks. This is because acts of piracy include any illegal acts of violence committed for private ends by private crew directed against another ship on the high seas or outside the jurisdiction of any state. Hence, those attacks should be appropriately referred to as “armed robbery against ships” for the purposes of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Sierra Leone ratified the UNCLOS on 12th December 1994 just under a month after it came into force on 16th November 1994.
In fact, the London-based International Maritime Organisation, a specialised UN agency charged with the responsibility inter alia of regulating the safety of shipping activities, has a monthly reporting scheme which requires State Parties to report to the IMO all incidents of piracy and armed robbery against ships and action taken. The two most recent reports, available to the public from 8th January 2007 and 12th December 2006, make no reference to the reported attacks on Chinese and other fishing vessels in Sierra Leone. Enquiries made by this press at the External Relations Office of IMO indicate that up to the time of this publication, no report had been received by IMO from authorities in Sierra Leone or her diplomatic services abroad.
Sierra Leoneans should be concerned about this too. Those reports are not meant to name and shame our government. They are an opportunity for states to take appropriate action and/or seek assistance from elsewhere to combat any threat to its shipping activities. Such threats invariably affect life and property at sea and adversely affect international trade. On 7th October 2006, the Zuljalal (a general cargo ship registered in Hong Kong, China) was attacked by two robbers at Anchorage in Conakry, Guinea. The robbers succeeded to throw overboard drums from the deck of the ship. This incident was duly reported by the Guinean authorities to the IMO. In another incident, the FPSO Mystras (a special purpose ship registered in Portugal) was attacked on 22nd November 2006 by ten robbers armed with guns off Port Harcourt in Nigeria. Seven workers on the ship were kidnapped. A Nigerian Naval craft engaged in a shoot-out and was able to rescue five workers. Again, this incident was reported to the IMO by the Nigerian authorities.
Why has the incident in Sierra Leone not been reported to the IMO by the Sierra Leone authority? Or why has there been a delay to report this incident, if that has now been done? It is understood from our enquiries at the IMO in London that no incident is too small or too big. The criteria for reporting include “incidents of piracy and armed robbery at sea (international or territorial waters) acts of armed robbery allegedly committed in port areas, as well as attempted acts of armed robbery”.
Perhaps the Sierra Leone government needs reminding that it has the power to prevent or punish any activity that amounts to an infringement of our customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws and regulations within 24 nautical miles from the baseline of Sierra Leone territorial waters. In the circumstances, the loss of an estimated US$200,000 to fishing vessels could arguably be a fiscal loss to Sierra Leone. Accordingly, our government or through its designated maritime authority should have endeavoured to engage with the public and tell us what action they have taken and report same to the IMO. This would certainly reassured the fishing industry and indicate in very emphatic terms that Sierra Leone would not sit back and compromise with violence or threats of violence to hamper its economic recovery. Lay back attitude to issues like this does not represent responsible leadership.
Photo: Prince Harding, Sierra Leone’s Transport and Communications minister.
Comments