In mid-December six pirates boarded the Marshall Islands-flagged tanker ‘Duke’ when it was sailing off Benin and abducted 21 seamen, of which 20 were Indians. They were held captive at another place. Last week, 18 of the seamen were released, and are at Lagos, Nigeria. It was only then that it came to light that Brito D’Silva was not among those released, and had passed away before Christmas as he was unwell. D’Silva was the sole breadwinner of the family and had got married in September last year.
Though the family of the seaman has expressed satisfaction that the company has taken up the responsibility to bring back his mortal remains, there are questions being raised by organisations working for the seafarers’ welfare that point towards the Indian Embassy, the Indian Government and the shipping authorities for allegedly committing errors leading to the abduction of seafarers. This calls in question the security of the ships when they travel through certain passages that are unsafe. Goa Seamen Association of India has pointed to lapses leading to D’Silva’s death and for not taking armed guards while sailing in High Risk Areas (HRA).
Piracy at sea on certain sea routes has been a threat to shipping and to lives of sailors. Due to the pirate attacks, the International Maritime Organisation had earlier released recommendations for governments for preventing piracy, and also for shipping companies on preventing and suppressing piracy and attacks. It calls on all ships operating in waters or ports where attacks occur to carry out a security assessment to prevent attacks and on how to react should an attack occur. It also recommends that if possible, ships should be routed away from areas where attacks are known to have taken place and, in particular, seek to avoid bottlenecks. That may not always be possible, but there are various other measures that are suggested.
While the carrying and use of firearms by seafarers for personal protection or for the protection of a ship is discouraged, the guidelines do suggest the use of unarmed security personnel, leaving it to the discretion of the shipowners and ship operators. It also states that if armed security personnel are allowed on board, the ship owner or operator should take into account the possible escalation of violence and other risks involved. ‘However, the use of privately contracted armed security personnel on board merchant ships and fishing vessels is a matter for flag State to determine in consultation with shipowners, operators and companies,’ it states.
The question that arises in the light of this is whether all or certain precautions that are recommended were taken. Besides, in June last year, the Directorate General of Shipping in India had banned Indian seafarers from working in vessels in Nigerian waters and the Gulf of Guinea – including Benin, Ghana, Togo, Cameroon, Gabon and Equatorial Guinea, due to the increasing risk of piracy and kidnapping. This pirate attack occurred in December, six months after the DGS circular, so it does appear that this warning was not heeded.
It is important that governments step in and form an international group to fight piracy in the high seas rather than leave it to individual governments or to the shipping companies. There has been a demand for uniformity on anti-piracy law across the world. Every ship has a mixture of nationalities on board so this turns into an issue for the international community to resolve. With lives at stake, some such action is required. For Goa, that has a large number of its young men on board ships, security on the high seas is important.
