TOWARDS EFFECTIVE ENFORCEMENT OF ANTI-PIRACY LAWS IN THE MARITIME JURISDICTION IN THE GULF OF GUINEA

ATTENTION:

BEFORE YOU READ THE ABSTRACT OR CHAPTER ONE OF THE PROJECT TOPICS BELOW, PLEASE READ THE INFORMATION BELOW.THANK YOU!

INFORMATION:

YOU CAN GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT OF THE TOPIC BELOW. THE FULL PROJECT COST N5,000 ONLY. THE FULL INFORMATION ON HOW TO PAY AND GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT IS AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS PAGE. OR

YOU CAN CALL: 08068231953, 08137701720, 09070569307, 08154275408

WHATSAPP US ON: 08137701720

TOWARDS EFFECTIVE ENFORCEMENT OF ANTI-PIRACY LAWS IN THE MARITIME JURISDICTION IN THE GULF OF GUINEA

Abstract

The history of Maritime piracy is an old concept, which can be traced far way back since the time when the human being started using sea as a means of transport. Its criminality was firstly been considered by the customary international law even before codification of the same in 1958 Geneva Convention on the High Seas and later the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Somali piracy emerged in the 1990s, its narrative root causes, and impact brought by it and how it is combated have moved the author to write this research. The International law perception of what constitutes acts of piracy lead the governments of Gulf of Guinea coastal states to be solely responsible for maritime security of their countries as well as eliminating piracy acts happening in their area. Different from piracy off the coast of Somalia, a stateless country, Gulf of Guinea countries have stable governments and thus the principle of sovereignty applies. The combat of piracy in the Gulf of Guinea is vested to the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), Economic Community of Central African States (ECCAS) and the Gulf of Guinea Commission (GGC) with the aid from partner States.This research focused on impact of Gulf of Guinea piracy to the maritime industry and to the countries, effectiveness of the control measures placed to combat piracy and challenges facing the combat of piracy in the area. Moreover, the definition of maritime piracy, narrative root causes of piracy off the coast of Gulf of Guinea, and lastly, conclusion and recommendations are the areas covered by this research.

CHAPTER 1 GENERAL INTRODUCTION

1.0.0: INTRODUCTION

1.1.0: BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY

1.2.0: OBJECTIVES OF STUDY

1.3.0: FOCUS OF STUDY

1.4.0 SCOPE OF STUDY

1.5.0: METHODOLOGY

1.6.0: LITERATURE REVIEW

7.0: CONCLUSION

CHAPTER 2

0.0: INTRODUCTION

2.1.0: HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF MARITIME PIRACY IN NIGERIA

2.2.0: MEANING / DEFINITION

2.3.0: NATURE OF PIRACY IN NIGERIA

2.4.0 CASES OF MARITIME PIRACY IN NIGERIA

5.0: CONCLUSION

CHAPTER 3

0.0: INTRODUCTION

3.1.0: HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF MARITIME PIRACY

Ancient sea piracy consisted of stealing and trading any goods the pirates found on captured ships. Initially, piracy was about survival, not profit. People often end up in pirate fleets because of their poor financial situation, inability to pay an inflated amount of tax or avoid death.

Pirates were a regular trove of thieves who found ships that happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time) And strangely, these ruthless pirates never let women on board because of their belief in superstition. The women were believed to have wreaked havoc and were unfavorable to the pirates. Therefore, women who wanted to be pirates often had to disguise themselves as men to join the “sea insurgents”.

Evolution of maritime piracyPirates now engage in piracy of goods of commercial value such as oil, drugs, alcohol, expensive clothing, and even antique items. These evolved pirates have even worked a way around old superstitions about female pirates. Smart pirate gangs now use so-called “delicate and delicate” women to infiltrate the ship’s crew and sometimes learn confidential information about cargo ship arrivals and departures. Today, Piracy is an extension of terrorism.

Pirates don’t stop just for commercial goods, in some regions they keep the crew of the ship hostage for days or even years until the shipping company, shipowners or even foreign embassies would not accept their requirements.

The evolution of sea pirates in the modern era has made it difficult for ReCaAP (Regional Cooperation Agreement against Piracy and Armed Robbery against Ships in Asia) and other anti-piracy organizations that are set up to curb maritime piracy.

Evolution of maritime piracyThe evolution of pirates has turned from those who wanted to make a living into criminals who want to cash in and make a profit. The evolution of sea pirates was a dramatic result of gradual changes in economics and technology. Currently, pirates use advanced weapons and ammunition. Pirates use light and fast motorboats to quickly sabotage their target. “Mothership” waits on a short distance to help the pirates.

Sea Pirates in 2020According to the above chart, the data from the first three months of the year 2020 depicts the fact that this year is on track to see more cases of piracy than in 2019. | Data: IMB Piracy Reporting CentreSea Pirates in 2020Pirates in 2020 are a manifestation of growing capitalism, lack of job opportunities as well as illiteracy. These new age robbers, with knowledge of the latest technology and weapons, are a step away from causing global terror and wreaking havoc on the ground.

Modern pirates rely heavily on technology on board. Whether it’s desktops, radars or any other hardware that’s connected to the outside world. Pirates use the technology to gain access to systems on board the ship and thus gain useful information. Because of this, maritime cybersecurity has become a global issue.There is a 24% increase in piracy due to the current COVID-19 pandemic, wich has shut down many businesses and job opportunities around the world, leaving people from lower financial structures struggling to make ends meet. The temptation of a little quick money led many to choose the illegal path.

What seafarers can do with piracyLaws: Strict laws need to be enacted and enforced against piracy. Laws requiring public punishment. Do we know what the use of laws written on a piece of paper is to a person who is illiterate? New laws or amended laws do not exactly guarantee an end to piracy, but they can certainly help in ensuring that the educated remain out of this illegal activity.

Legalizing Piracy: As strange as it may sound. Some pirates who engage in illegal trade for “adventure” rather than for profit or earning a living may get jobs in the field. A private person is a private person or private warship authorized by the country’s government with letters of marking to attack foreign shipping that enters the territory of the state. Simply put, they are legalized pirates. For example, pirates who can return to their old profession can be trained in the field and thus can afford a life without worrying about being caught.

Safe navigation: There are navigation systems that share pirate data with different sources, identify areas with potential piracy risk, and build the route of the ship’s traffic in bypassing them (as in bypassing the storm). Systems such as Marine Digital FOS not only predict and signal danger, but offer several options for route of the vessel. The captain and managers in the spiking company only have to choose the right solution that the routeplanner offers.

Inbuilt Radars: Ships with built-in radar are an asset in areas prone to piracy. Pretty expensive alternative, but extremely useful when it comes to preventing attacks. Built-in radar can alert the ship’s captain to an impending attack, and the necessary actions can be taken in time to defeat pirate ships, such as speeding up the ship to pirate ships could not come close or call on the reserve Royal Navy and Coast Guard to protect the ship.

Satellite warnings: Satellite GPS can be used to track pirate ships nearby and thus prevent pirate attacks. Similar to built-in radar satellite warnings may prove useful. This is an expensive alternative, but with cooperation between countries, the method can be applied to combat maritime piracy.

Self-defense: The ship’s crew must be well trained and focused on conducting anti-piracy exercises. For a ship to be truly safe from pirates, you need people who can fight attacks on the ship. In addition to this, blocking strategies (rather than those implemented during COVID-19) must be trained by the crew so that in the event of an attack they can ward off the pirates.

Ship bodyguard: A cargo ship or tanker can be sent into the waters along with several other vessels for protection. These “bodyguard” ships may hold the nation’s naval forces. In the event of a pirate attack, bodyguard/”ship guards” ships can deal with pirates while a real freight/tanker continues its journey.

Sting operations: Sting an operation to figure out a group of pirates seems a tedious task, but in the long run it’s one of the best and most complete ways to deter piracy. The “pacifier” ships can be tracked using GPS chips embedded in the item. So the focus will be the customers of pirates, not just the location of part of a criminal group. The entire pirate net can be exposed by effort and financial support.

Piracy has been and will be, many measures are being taken not only at the level of the ship’s crew or the management of a shipping company, but also by whole countries that create anti-piracy organizations and introduce military forces to combat naval terrorism, as was the case in Operation Sea Shield, where The US Navy, followed by the Indian Navy, deployed the largest number of ships and on December 16, 2016 ended in success as maritime piracy by Somali pirates was suppressed. And even if this is not the final victory, but a big step towards improving the safety of sailors at sea.

CHAPTER 4

INCIDENCES OF PIRACY AMONG STATES, AND FEDERAL LEVELS

4.1.0: INTRODUCTION

In a world where trade, economies and populations are growing fast, the long‐term availability of cost‐effective, efficient, environmentally sustainable, safe and secure maritime transport services is crucial. As part I of this report shows, maritime piracy has developed from a localized maritime transport concern to a cross‐sectoral global challenge with humanitarian and security implications and with a range of important repercussions for the development prospects of affected regional economies as well as for global trade.

Addressing this challenge in an effective manner requires strong cooperation at the political, economic, legal, diplomatic and military levels, as well as collaboration between diverse public and private sector stakeholders across regions. To some extent, such cooperation has been effective when the international community joined forces to combat piracy in East African waters. Multilateral cooperation efforts in the region have involved Governments, regional organizations, intergovernmental organizations as well as the shipping industry. However, much remains to be achieved.

Despite the significant drop in the number of reported attacks off the coast of Somalia/Gulf of Aden in 2012 and 2013, the problem has not gone away. As pointed out by one observer, “the pirates are still there – they haven’t gone away, they are just sleeping. It might be contained now […] but the networks or individuals involved in piracy could easily go back into piracy depending on the situation”. In the meantime, a surge in the number of piracy incidents in the Gulf of Guinea and the associated high level of violence are further raising the stakes and are keeping the issue of piracy firmly among the priorities on the agenda of the international community and of the shipping industry. Thus, a recent online survey carried out by Lloyd’s List indicates that 53 per cent of the respondents considered escalating piracy as a future threat to shipping. About two‐thirds of respondents considered West Africa as a likely hotspot for future threats, followed by East Africa and the Indian Ocean (40 per cent of respondents) and the Malacca Strait and South China Sea (33 per cent of respondents). Also worth noting is that a significant majority of respondents to the survey (70 per cent) were of the view that the coast of Somalia continues to present risks to shipping.

[1] Maritime Piracy, Part I: An Overview of Trends, Costs and Trade‐related Implications, UNCTAD/DTL/TLB/2013/1. Available at http://unctad.org/ttl/legal.

[1] See for example BIMCO (2012). Reflections 2013. An Ocean of Expertise.

[1] Mary Harper (2013). Pirates are just sleeping. Ship Management International. Issue 45. September/October. Page 50.

[1] Lloyd’s List Security Survey (2013). Future Threats to Shipping. 21 November. Available at http://www.shiptalk.com/wp‐content/uploads/2013/11/LL‐Security‐Survey.png.

Piracy is the oldest international crime, and yet despite considerable global efforts, it persists and continues to evolve in various ways and contexts. The international community is equally persistent in its response, building on longstanding international legal frameworks and adopting new approaches to meet the challenge. Piracy has significant impacts on multiple aspects of sustainability.

The United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions), for example, seeks to, inter alia, “significantly reduce all forms of violence and related death rates everywhere” (16.1), “significantly reduce illicit financial and arms flows, strengthen the recovery and return of stolen assets and combat all forms of organized crime” (16.4), and “strengthen relevant national institutions, including through international cooperation, for building capacity at all levels, in particular in developing countries, to prevent violence and combat terrorism and crime” (16.A) [1]. According to SDG 16, piracy, which poses a serious threat to freedom of navigation, maritime security, and human life, is the target of repression. Strengthening anti-piracy law will significantly contribute to the achievement of SDG16.

As a transnational organized crime at sea, piracy could impact other SDGs [2]. For example, maritime transport is “fundamental to sustaining economic growth and spreading prosperity throughout the world” [3]. Piracy negatively impacts on economic aspects of shipping and transport. Therefore, it directly affects economic growth in SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth) [4] and then prevents achieving the goal of poverty eradication (SDG 1: No Poverty) [4]. Since disruptions to supply chains may harm sustainable cities and communities [5], piracy also negatively impacts on SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities) [4]. Piracy threatens the lives and health of seafarers and passengers, which is related to SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-Being) [4]. When seafarers do not have a safe working environment, the goal of decent work in SDG 8 is affected. Piracy also poses a threat to food security [3]. Just as Somali pirates had an impact on the food transportation of the World Food Program [6], so anti-piracy may contribute to SDG 2 (Zero Hunger) [4]. Furthermore, piracy is potentially environmentally harmful, as vessels are attacked and lost, which leads to negative impacts on SDG 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation) and SDG 14 (Life below Water) [4]. Consequently, the anti-piracy legal system is conducive to achieving these SDGs. The enactment and implementation of anti-piracy laws and regulations needs partnerships among States and international organizations, which itself strengthens partnerships (SDG 17: Partnerships) [4,7]. Under international law, States have universal jurisdiction over piracy [8]. However, with the rapid expansion of Somali piracy, the international community faced tremendous challenges in exercising this universal jurisdiction over piracy. In many cases, approaches have involved “catch and release”, and many pirates have not been prosecuted and have gone unpunished [9]. In this context, it is valuable to explore why this may be the case and how anti-piracy law can be strengthened for the future. Many scholars have researched various aspects of universal jurisdiction over piracy. They have addressed a range of issues including the history and basis of universal jurisdiction over piracy [10,11,12,13,14], definitional issues of piracy [15,16], the conflict of jurisdictions and weaknesses in domestic law [17], and the application and use of universal jurisdiction [18,19,20]. However, this scholarship frequently involves only certain aspects of the universal jurisdiction over piracy and does not analyze the anti-piracy legal system as a whole, nor does it examine the challenges brought by the current situation of piracy and the development trend of universal jurisdiction. The relationship between the anti-piracy legal system and the sustainable development goals, as well as the sustainability of the legal system itself, are not particularly concerned, either.

This article aims to enhance an anti-piracy legal system that is helpful for achieving the goals of the SDGs and that has its own sustainability issues. By investigating the legal provisions and the actual situation, this article comprehensively analyzes the problems of the lack of sustainability of the anti-piracy legal system related to universal jurisdiction and puts forward systematic solutions.

According to the definition of sustainable development in the Report “Our Common Future”, which is considered to be the most accepted definition [3], sustainable development means “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” [21]. The definition emphasizes the intergenerational aspects of development. It can be seen that solutions to sustainability problems need to have a long-term perspective and should be able to cope with new situations that arise, or at least should be agile enough to be adjusted in accordance with the evolving situation. The universal jurisdiction over piracy is stipulated in the Convention on the High Seas (HSC) and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Nonetheless, great changes have taken place in the situation of piracy compared with that at the time of the conclusion of the Conventions (Part Two), and new trends have emerged in the exercise of the universal jurisdiction over piracy (Part Three). In addition to the deficiencies of both international and domestic piracy law (Part Four), the existing anti-piracy legal system cannot fully and effectively respond to modern piracy and lacks sustainability to a certain extent. In this context, it is valuable to explore a long-term and comprehensive solution for the future. Therefore, various relationships must be balanced (Part Five). This article also explores approaches to enhance a sustainable, international anti-piracy legal system and how national level implementation and enforcement can be supported (Part Six).

4.2.0: PROBLEMS OF MARITIME PIRACY

4.3.0: SOLUTIONS TO THE PROBLEMS

Maritime piracy is generally understood to be acts of violence, detention or depredation committed for private ends by the crew or passengers of a private ship against another ship, including its persons or property on the high seas.1 Maritime piracy began in antiquity and since the advent of the Law of Nations, has been regarded as an international crime. Indeed, it can be said that piracy at sea is as old as maritime navigation itself.2

Unfortunately, today maritime piracy is resurging at a rate without precedent in history as exemplified by maritime piracy committed in Indian Ocean off the coast of Somalia, the Gulf of Guinea, the Singapore and Malacca Straits, the Arabian Peninsula, Caribbean, Celebes, Java, North Yellow, and South China Seas, and the Bay of Bengal. Far from being a replica of the past, piracy has reappeared in new forms that are more violent, as pirates are now better organised, better equipped and more heavily armed. In its Report of October 1997 on Oceans and the Law of the Sea, the Secretary-General of the

United Nations alerted the International Community on the gravity of piracy and armed Robbery at sea. Such robbery and criminal violence come with a plethora of other associated illicit acts, such as maritime terrorism, corruption, money laundering, violation of international human rights law, illegal fishing, and the unlawful release of waste and toxic substances in the seas and oceans, human and drugs trafficking, etc.

As such, maritime piracy is now a major concern of the international community as a whole, as acts of piracy are committed in all maritime zones and affect to various degrees the interests of all states, whether coastal or landlocked.8 From a standpoint of the wealth and development of States, it is worth noting that 85% of commerce transits through maritime routes, many of which are threatened by piracy. Consequently, Flag States, Coastal States, Port States and other States are attempting to fight all forms of maritime piracy across the oceans, so as to protect human lives, to protect economic interests, to preserve freedom of navigation, and to preserve the marine environment against unlawful marine pollution and other unlawful acts at sea.

Piracy at Sea is typically directed against private vessels and therefore has significant effects upon private actors.10 Crew members of an attacked vessel are at risk of prolonged detention, bodily harm or death. Ship owners are exposed to large ransoms to obtain the release from pirates of their crew, cargo and ship. Maritime insurance companies must take account of the possibility of maritime piracy, thereby increasing the overall cost of maritime transport and introducing in maritime contracts piracy clauses. Piracy is also a source of concern for coastal communities and international organizations. One solution found appropriate under these circumstances, was to involve private companies to help combating piracy despite the controversy surrounding this approach and its legal basis in international law.

The human and economic impacts of piracy are indeed far from negligible. In 2010, 26% of piracy victims were taken hostage – representing 1181 out of a total of 4185 victims – and 59% of hostages faced increased levels of violence. Economic costs for piracy acts in Somalia only are estimated at between US$1 billion and US$16 billion; they include the cost of fuel due to rerouting, an increase in insurance cost of US$20,000 per trip, reduced availability of tankers, and increased charter rates. Additionally, ransoms paid by the owner(s) of a ship to pirates have been between US$500,000 and US$5.5 million, resulting in an estimated total of $US160 million paid in ransom for Gulf of Aden piracy acts only. Approximately, 10 hijackings of ships decrease export between Asia and Europe by 11%, which results in costs of US$28 billion. While precise statistics on fishers are difficult to find, they suffer a disproportionate amount of attacks (usually to steal valuable catches and equipment) resulting in thousands of US$ of costs per fisher and millions for each affected regions. Finally, the annual estimated cost for security measures implemented by EU and NATO ant-piracy navies is of US$1.15 billion, and of US$4.7 billion for private anti-piracy measures.

Modern pirates operate from landward bases, spending much less time at sea than pirates of the past.21 “Their usual strategy is to undertake quick raids in small boats launched from mother ships that were themselves pirated and then return to onshore

There is considerable international law relating to maritime piracy, beginning with State practice that over time developed extensive customary international law in this area.

Based on such custom and most importantly the Harvard Research Draft on piracy,25 the International Law Commission developed as part of its work on the law of the sea26 a series of provisions concerning piracy which ultimately became Articles 14 to 21 of the Geneva Convention on the High Seas, which in turn later served as the basis for Articles 100 to 107 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Additional conventional law has been developed on the global level, principally under the auspices of the International Maritime Organisation, such as the 1988 Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation (SUA Convention), and its Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Fixed Platforms located on the Continental Shelf (and further 2005 Protocols). Other global treaties not specific to piracy may also be relevant, such as the 1979 International Convention against the Taking of Hostages and Convention of the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS Convention 1974), the Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime, the International Ship and Port Facility Security Code (ISPS), etc.

There are also numerous treaties and instruments developed at the regional and subregional level. Such as the 2004 Regional Cooperation Agreement on Combating Piracy and Armed Robbery against Ships in Asia (RECAAP) to which 16 Asian States are party. Many States have developed national laws addressing maritime piracy, which has led to important jurisprudence in national courts and good deal of success in the prevention and repression of piracy in certain regions. Other subsequent sub-regional

A further issue, though related to Section C above, concerns analysing and helping to clarify the difference between maritime piracy as a crime and armed robbery at sea as a different crime. As a general matter, maritime piracy is a crime that has emerged in relation to the high seas (including what is now regarded as the exclusive economic zone). By contrast, the crime of armed robbery at sea occurs within a States territorial sea.

It appears that many States have both types of crime, but are not clear in their national laws as to the distinction between the two offences and, in particular, with respect to the location of the offences. As such, a problem of “double incrimination” may arise, creating confusion regarding the applicable law. Based on international law and States practice, the Commission might analyse when these respective offences should apply, how they differ, and whether they are linked, as a means of clarifying the law in this area, which may be of value to States when developing national laws and exercising national jurisdiction.

State actions at sea, whether unilateral or multilateral, are limited in their ability to deal comprehensively and efficiently with maritime piracy, leaving private vessels vulnerable. That vulnerability has led ship owners to pursue their own maritime security often through contracts with security companies. Such private maritime security may consist of having armed security personnel on the private vessel, who may exercise lethal action when approached by other vessels. This phenomenon, in term of preventive measures, raises the questions of whether international law requires or should require the flag State, the State where the security company is incorporated, or other States to regulate such actions. Private vessels are not authorized under the 1982 Convention to engage in hot pursuit. Thus, a private ship that is the victim of piracy has no recourse to undertake enforcement action under the law of law of the sea. The Commission might consider the law and practice in this area to see if private vessels are prohibited from engaging in such action by international law and, if so, the line between such actions and defensive acts when attacked by maritime pirates.

The 1982 Convention on the law of the Sea allows exclusively pursuit against pirates by public vessels, such as military vessels and other vessels owned by the State and accomplishing a public service. The Commission might analyse the operation of such rules in the context of piracy and armed robbery at sea based on contemporary State practice, and consider whether the rules set forth in the 1982 Convention in this regard have the status of customary international law, binding upon all States.

In fact, pirates committing crimes in the high seas know that by staying in the high seas or the exclusive economic zone, they may be pursued and captured by any state on the basis of universal criminal jurisdiction. To avoid that situation, they typically will quickly move, after an act of piracy, to the nearest territorial sea of a State to escape pursuit by foreign vessels. Moreover, the fact that many States do not have the capacity to control their territorial sea encourages pirates to move their operations in these waters by raiding and attacking ships waiting their turn to enter a port.

It was to solve this issue that the Security Council, on an exceptional basis, authorised foreign naval forces to engage in pursuing into the Somalian territorial sea from the adjacent high seas and exclusive economic zone for the purpose of capturing pirate vessels. Moreover, the Council also authorized foreign naval vessels, with the consent of the Government of Somalia, to enter into Somalia’s territorial sea for the purpose of capturing pirate vessels. In the same time, the Security Council made it clear that “the provisions of this resolution apply only with respect to the situation in Somalia and do not affect the rights and obligations or responsibilities of Member States under international law”, which means that these provisions should be enforced under the legal framework of the fight against piracy as established by the 1982 Convention on the law of the Sea and rules of customary international law.

With respect to the Rights of Alleged Offenders, persons who are alleged to have committed maritime piracy are entitled to fair treatment, including a fair trial, and full protection of his or her rights under national and international law as demonstrated by case law through domestic courts’ decisions and international courts’ rulings dealing with pirates’ prosecution.

The operation of such rights in context of seizure of the person on the high seas and hence outside the sovereign jurisdiction of any State might be analysed so as to clarify how such rights operate in this context.

6.0: CONCLUSION

CHAPTER 5 GENERAL CONCLUSION

0.0: CONCLUSION

5.1.0: RECOMMENDATION

BIBILOGRAPHY

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The Suppression of Piracy and Other Maritime Offences Bill was assented to by President Muhammadu Buhari of Nigeria in July 2019 thereby enabling Nigeria to establish a domestic legal framework for dealing with piracy and other maritime crimes. It took almost a decade of advocacy to implement such a law in order to curb and deter sea piracy, armed robbery and other unlawful acts at sea.

The key objective of the Act is to give effect to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)² and the SUA Convention³ in Nigeria. In assenting to the Bill, the president successfully concluded almost a decade of advocacy to implement such a law in order to curb and deter sea piracy, armed robbery at sea, and other unlawful acts at sea.⁴ The focus of this article is to assess the adequacy or otherwise of the Act in the face of these and other emerging maritime threats. The Suppression of Piracy and Other Maritime Offences Act 2019⁵ gives effect to the relevant provisions of several international conventions already ratified by Nigeria. It is significant because it has:

ended the controversy around whether the crime of sea piracy is defined in any local legislation; and
bestowed on the Federal High Court⁶ exclusive jurisdiction to determine matters of armed robbery and other unlawful acts at sea.

Maritime piracy is not a new phenomenon in the world maritime trade. It has been observed way back centuries for centuries having the same cause but differs in style. Despite its oldest concept into people’s mind piracy has never been observed as a friend to the maritime industry, it is indeed an enemy of the sea transportation, an enemy to the world economy, an enemy to the consumers and thus it has always been fought. And because it comes in the different style and form depending on the need and geographical location, even the way of combating it can never be uniform. The advancement of technology resulted piracy of today to be far way different from the ancient piracy thus even response by the world on how to combat it should be in accordance with the technology advancement. This research is focusing on the recent piracy activities happening in the Gulf of Guinea.

Piracy in the Gulf of Guinea have been observed to grow in an alarming proportions in recent times where hi-jacking and kidnaping of ships and its crew happen in great number. The Gulf has been ranked by the International Maritime Bureau (IMB) as the area with the third highest incidence of piracy and armed robbery against ships in the world, following South East Asia and Horn of Africa1. The piracy activities in this area involves not only hijack for ransom, but also theft of cash and cargo and siphoning oil carried on board the attacked ships. These activities are really endangering safety of navigation. The geographical coverage of these activities is in the Nigerian coast water, Togo coast water, Benin coastal water, the waters of Ivory Coast, waters of Gabon and other nearby countries of West and Central Africa. These led the London-based Lloyd’s Market Association, an Umbrella group of Maritime Insurers, to list these countries in the risk category as Somalia

Maritime piracy has been classified, together with others (war crimes and crimes against humanity) as universal crime under the international law, whereby all nations may both arrest and punish piracy provided that it has been committed on the high seas (terra nullius). Piracy under international context has firstly been defined by the 1958 Geneva Convention on the high seas as illegal acts of violence, detention or depredation committed for private ends by the crew or passengers of a private ship or private aircraft and directed against another ship or aircraft or against persons or property onboard such ships or aircraft on the high seas which is outside of jurisdiction of any State . This definition has later in 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea article 101, been confirmed and adopted.

Definition of piracy in the international law eyes has emerged discussion particularly on the geographical coverage of the place where piracy activities are considered to have taken place. This definition is considered to be narrow as it has left no room for the activities of the same nature happening elsewhere than on the high seas. It excludes all the activities of a like that is happening in the territorial waters of a State and within the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of a State where no other State than the territorial’s shall have jurisdiction over the matter, and International Law could not apply but Municipal Laws of the littoral State where the piracy activities are taking place. Piracy activities happening in the Gulf of Guinea have emerged mixed thoughts amongst scholars on whether the same fit into the international law definition of piracy or not, this research will also focus piracy within the ambit of international law definition and whether the same is exhaustive.

Shipping accounts for the transportation of over 90 percent of world trade in volume terms. It is also noteworthy that the seas host important economic infrastructure such as offshore oil and gas production platforms, underwater fibre-optic cables carrying 95 percent of the world’s intercontinental communications traffic (emails, phone calls, money transfers) and pipelines.1 In view of its importance as the nerve centre of world trade, the safety and security at sea of vessels, cargo, passengers and crew, and maritime infrastructure and facilities have remained of paramount concern to the international community.

The need to secure the seas and shipping against emerging threats to maritime security has, therefore, assumed much significance. In his 2008 report on Oceans and the Law of the Sea,2 the United Nations Secretary-General identified seven specific threats to maritime security as follows: piracy and armed robbery against ships, terrorism, illicit trafficking in arms and weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), illicit trafficking of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, smuggling and trafficking of persons by sea, illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing (IUU Fishing), and intentional and unlawful damage to the marine environment. One may also include other threats such as low-intensity or irregular maritime militia and stowaways. Two of the most violent of these threats, however, are piracy and terrorism.

Piracy as a general term constitutes a particular form of maritime violence usually characterized by aggression, plunder, hostage-taking and death. Pirate attacks threaten seafarers, the security of navigation and the marine environment, and also has the potential to disrupt the provision of humanitarian aid, fishing, tourism and marine scientific research. The alteration of navigational routes in order to bypass areas of suspected pirate activity also affect commerce.3

Terrorism, on the other hand, has been described as ‘political piracy.’4 The crime of terrorism as has been shown by the September 11 happenings is a crime that has far-reaching international implications affecting not only the nation in which the atrocious acts are committed but also the international community in general.5 Terrorism simply means deliberately and violently targeting civilians for political purposes. Terrorism can be committed during an armed conflict or at peace times. It can be widespread and systematic or simply sporadic.6 There is, however, no internationally recognized definition of terrorism.

The concept of maritime terrorism was initially understood within the context of piracy whereby any unauthorized act of violence on the high seas would be characterized as piracy. However, as the formal definition of piracy under international law came to be understood as limited to acts of violence perpetrated for financial purposes, there were still acts of violence at sea undertaken for political reasons. These violent acts, if performed outside the territorial sea, were not recognized as crimes over which all states could exercise jurisdiction, as is the case with piracy. Instead, these acts came to be branded as maritime terrorism. Maritime terrorism has been described as ‘the systematic use or threat to use acts of violence against international shipping and maritime services by an individual or group to induce fear and intimidation in a civilian population in order to achieve political ambitions or objectives.’

1.2.0: OBJECTIVES OF STUDY

The main objective of this essay is to critically analysis To understand the maritime piracy in Nigeria. Furthermore, the essay tends to highlight circumstances surrounding maritime piracy in Nigeria. It also aims to understand the relationship between anti-piracy laws in the maritime jurisdiction and solution to maritime piracy problems.

1.3.0: FOCUS OF STUDY

This essay shall focus on anti-piracy laws in the maritime jurisdiction in the gulf of guines and other instances surrounding it.

1.4.0: SCOPE OF STUDY

This essay shall not exceed the content of this title; it shall be within the purview prescribed by the topic. This essay has it main focus on ant-piracy laws in the maritime jurisdiction in the gulf of guines.

1.5.0: METHODOLOGY

Both the primary and secondary sources of law are the basis for this research work. Thus the Evidence Act, Law text books, Law report, Articles on law, Various Statute and Cases on the subject matter are the sources of information. This project shall also be analytical in nature.

1.6.0: LITERATURE REVIEW

This legal definition of piracy must be distinguished from the concept of armed robbery against ships. This is a term used by the IMO in its Code of Practice for the Investigation of Crimes of Piracy and Armed Robbery against Ships. This Code, which has no legal status, defines armed robbery against ships as ‘any illegal act of violence or detention or any act of depredation, or threat thereof, other than an act of piracy, committed for private ends and directed against a ship or against persons or property on board such a ship, within a State’s internal waters, archipelagic waters and territorial sea; and any act of inciting or of intentionally facilitating an act described above.’

The Achille Lauro case involved numerous controversies concerning whether Italy and Egypt had agreed to forego prosecution, whether such a promise was conditioned on no one being harmed during the seizure, concerning the role of the Palestinian Liberation Organization, concerning legal obligation of the states involved with regard to extradition and international cooperation, and concerning whether the hijacking was a universal offence under international customary law or only an offence depending on its definition by the national law of the various states involved.

The possibility of establishing universal jurisdiction was then related to the Convention on the High Seas provision on piracy. However, the Achille Lauro incident could not be characterized as piracy because the crimes were not committed for private ends and did not involve a pirate ship. Another controversial issue was related to the fact that as the terrorists with their weapon freely boarded the Achille Lauro in Italy the crimes could not be considered as entirely perpetrated in the high seas, thus creating a further impediment to the exercise of universal jurisdiction.

1.7: CONCLUSION

Piracy and armed robbery at sea have severely constrained shipping in Nigeria. Ship owners are now forced to arrange and pay for armed guards to escort vessels in and out of berth thereby incurring additional costs (of between $30,000 and $50,000 per vessel per trip) on the eastern flanks of the nation’s waterways.5 The carrying of armed guards and firearms for personal protection or protection of a ship is only ‘discouraged’ by the International Maritime Organization (IMO), not forbidden. But it has been a vexed issue in Nigeria because of the additional costs it adds to shipping in the country.

Secondly, both customary international law and the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties recognize a duty known by the Latin words ‘pacta sunt servanda’ meaning that agreements must be observed in good faith. In dualist countries, that is, those which require legislation to translate treaty obligations into domestic law, observance of the maritime instruments in good faith means that the necessary legislative implementation of treaty obligations should precede or be contemporaneous with adoption of the international instrument. Nigeria, as part of the international community has an obligation to ratify and domesticate important treaties like the 2005 SUA and its Fixed Platform Protocol for her own security and the security of global maritime transport and facilities. In the US v Shi, the conviction of Shi for unlawful acts at sea was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States because the need of the United States to be able to fulfil treaty obligations and the historical need to deal with crimes on the high seas provided a constitutional justification for the domestic statute under which Shi was properly prosecuted.

Thirdly, piracy manifests as low-intensity insurgency when it comes to oil exploration. Oil installations in Nigeria have come under attack by pirates and terrorists with oil production in Nigeria dropping by 20 percent at the peak of attacks in 2006 costing the Nigerian economy approximately US$202 million. Although most of the attacks were on onshore facilities, the stakes went up in 2008 when the Bonga oil platform, an FPSO producing about 202,000 barrels of crude oil per day and located about 120 nautical miles offshore Nigeria, was attacked by a militant group, the Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta (MEND). The operator of the platform, Shell, was forced to shut it down for three weeks. MEND has been classified as a terrorist organization.

HOW TO RECEIVE PROJECT MATERIAL (S)

After paying the appropriate amount (#5,000) into our bank Account below, send the following information to any of the numbers below

08068231953, 08137701720, 09070569307, 08154275408 (1) Your project topics

(2) Email Address

(3) Payment Name

OR you drop them on our WhatsApp, 08137701720

We will send your material(s) after we receive bank alert

BANK ACCOUNTS

Account Name: AMUTAH DANIEL CHUKWUDI

Account Number: 0046579864

Bank: GTBank.

Account Name: AMUTAH DANIEL CHUKWUDI