An American judge has refused to dismiss all charges against Mohammad Saaili Shibin, one of the first ever people renditioned from Somalia to the USA on piracy charges. And the judge has also said that statements made by the man whilst been flown from Somalia to the USA can be used as evidence.
Mohammad Saaili Shibin's defence lawyer demanded that all charges against be dropped for several reasons, including the fact that the arrest and rendition to the USA was illegal; he was basically kidnapped from Somalia.
It is alleged that Mohammad Saaili Shibin searched the internet using his cellphone to try and ascertain how much of a ransom could be demanded for an American yacht hi-jacked in early 2011. Whilst in custody and been flown to the US (three days after he was first arrested and interrogated) he is alleged to have confessed to being the negotiator when the German ship, Marida Marguerite, was hi-jacked in 2010. As a result he now faces two charges, one in relation to the US yacht and the other to the German merchant ship.
Germany was thanked by the USA for its role in bringing the charges against the man.
The trial is set down to begin on the 17th April.
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Monday, January 30, 2012
Sitting in Prison
Six Somali men arrested off the coast of Somalia on January 12th are now sitting in prison in Spain after allegedly attacking the Atalanta Flagship, Patina. (Spain is currently leading Atalanta, having replaced Germany in December 2011). The men say they are fishermen and that one of their group was killed by the Spanish military.
The charges they face include attempted piracy and disobeying a warship. No trial date has yet been set.
Meanwhile in Hamburg, Germany, the prosecution has rested its case and called for sentences ranging from seven to eleven years for the adult men on trial and between four and five and a half years for the under-age defendants. The court case is set to continue until the end of March.
And in Belgium, the Brussels Court of Appeal upheld the sentence of ten years given in July last year against the one person on trial there. He had been arrested in November 2009 on the basis of DNA evidence held in the Interpol collection. The collection of DNA samples of suspected Somali "pirates" was officially established in mid-2010 after an anti-pirate conference in South Korea.
Many northern Hemisphere and western countries oppose the collection of DNA samples from their own population, but allow their own navies and military to build databases of Somali people in Africa and their border agencies to build databases of refugees and people seeking asylum.
The charges they face include attempted piracy and disobeying a warship. No trial date has yet been set.
Meanwhile in Hamburg, Germany, the prosecution has rested its case and called for sentences ranging from seven to eleven years for the adult men on trial and between four and five and a half years for the under-age defendants. The court case is set to continue until the end of March.
And in Belgium, the Brussels Court of Appeal upheld the sentence of ten years given in July last year against the one person on trial there. He had been arrested in November 2009 on the basis of DNA evidence held in the Interpol collection. The collection of DNA samples of suspected Somali "pirates" was officially established in mid-2010 after an anti-pirate conference in South Korea.
Many northern Hemisphere and western countries oppose the collection of DNA samples from their own population, but allow their own navies and military to build databases of Somali people in Africa and their border agencies to build databases of refugees and people seeking asylum.
Saturday, January 28, 2012
A 1 in 300 risk
There's been an interesting argument going on in the English courts over the last few months. It's a debate that focuses on the risk of a ship being attacked by pirates whilst going around the Horn of Africa. And the risk, both shipping companies and the courts agree, is actually only 1 voyage out of every 300 transits a ship does.
That is, one transit out of every 300 is at risk.
And allegedly because of this risk, the EU has continued Operation Atalanta to the end of 2012 and is considering expanding its powers so that Atalanta forces can now legally go on Somali land. The USA has just announced that it is expanding its presence in the Gulf of Aden with a floating SEAL base.
Somali piracy is seen as a huge threat and money continues to be poured into stopping the 'pirates' but little is done to stop the IUU fishing boats or the dumping of toxic wastes. It continues.
The details of the actual court case have received minimal coverage in the mainstream press, however it is covered in legal websites and journals. The case involved a Panama flag-flying ship, Triton Lark. The ship was charted by a Hong Kong company, Pacific Basin, to carry a load of Potash from Hamburg to China via the Suez Canal from its disponent owner - the Norwegian firm 'Bulkhandling Handymax' (The real ship owner is Triton Navigation B.V., an Amsterdam company part of the Japanese multi-national Sumitomo Group).
Because of the risk of piracy, the Norwegian firm refused to sail through the Suez Canal and therefore costs of the voyage increased. Pacific Basin then sued for those costs to be covered; both sides agreed that the actual risk is only one in 300 transits. The matter has been referred back to the arbitrators.
That is, one transit out of every 300 is at risk.
And allegedly because of this risk, the EU has continued Operation Atalanta to the end of 2012 and is considering expanding its powers so that Atalanta forces can now legally go on Somali land. The USA has just announced that it is expanding its presence in the Gulf of Aden with a floating SEAL base.
Somali piracy is seen as a huge threat and money continues to be poured into stopping the 'pirates' but little is done to stop the IUU fishing boats or the dumping of toxic wastes. It continues.
The details of the actual court case have received minimal coverage in the mainstream press, however it is covered in legal websites and journals. The case involved a Panama flag-flying ship, Triton Lark. The ship was charted by a Hong Kong company, Pacific Basin, to carry a load of Potash from Hamburg to China via the Suez Canal from its disponent owner - the Norwegian firm 'Bulkhandling Handymax' (The real ship owner is Triton Navigation B.V., an Amsterdam company part of the Japanese multi-national Sumitomo Group).
Because of the risk of piracy, the Norwegian firm refused to sail through the Suez Canal and therefore costs of the voyage increased. Pacific Basin then sued for those costs to be covered; both sides agreed that the actual risk is only one in 300 transits. The matter has been referred back to the arbitrators.
Monday, January 16, 2012
Lethal Force and Armed Guards
The use of armed guards on board ships transiting the Gulf of Aden is becoming increasingly commonplace. This despite the fact that only two years ago the IMO was against it and in 2010 the IFSMA (International Federation of Shipmasters' Associations) said, "that under no circumstances should the crew on board merchant ships be armed or any armed guards be taken on board." Now the IMO is asking governments to endorse the practise; some countries already have, including Britain, Denmark, Spain and Norway. Ships bearing the flag of other countries continue to use private armed guards regardless of whether it's legal or not and other ship owners are changing the country where they have registered the ship. For example, several German companies have already changed flag so they can carry armed guards legally.
And the British Parliament is currently drawing up guidelines on the use of 'lethal force' or 'shoot to kill policies' on ships carrying the British flag. That is, when will it be deemed legal to kill a person suspected of piracy.
But people suspected of piracy are dying now - they are killed by some of the 'official' campaigns operating around the Horn, killed by IUUs and other illegal fishing boats, or just disappearing.
And the British Parliament is currently drawing up guidelines on the use of 'lethal force' or 'shoot to kill policies' on ships carrying the British flag. That is, when will it be deemed legal to kill a person suspected of piracy.
But people suspected of piracy are dying now - they are killed by some of the 'official' campaigns operating around the Horn, killed by IUUs and other illegal fishing boats, or just disappearing.
Tuesday, January 3, 2012
Attack on land - nothing new!
On 20th December the EU instructed the commander of Atalanta to draw up new plans for revised rules of engagement - plans to attack 'pirate' basis on the land. It became news nine days later after it was leaked in the German media. For Germany to become involved in on-shore attacks a new mandate has to be passed in the German parliament.
A spokesperson for the German Foreign Ministry said that the changes would mean "limited destruction of piracy logistics on the beach" but "no deployment on land." The statements raise interesting questions - when is a beach not land? And how far inland does a beach extend?
Actually members of Atalanta have actually already been deployed on land. In one known incident video coverage shows French troops attacking people on land after the French boat Le Ponant was hi-jacked in 2008. Six people were arrested and three people were killed during the 'operation'.
A spokesperson for the German Foreign Ministry said that the changes would mean "limited destruction of piracy logistics on the beach" but "no deployment on land." The statements raise interesting questions - when is a beach not land? And how far inland does a beach extend?
Actually members of Atalanta have actually already been deployed on land. In one known incident video coverage shows French troops attacking people on land after the French boat Le Ponant was hi-jacked in 2008. Six people were arrested and three people were killed during the 'operation'.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)