Shipowners and charterers navigating the Gulf of Aden have seen insurance premiums for kidnap and ransom increase tenfold as piracy escalates. According to Lloyd’ s List, Economic Cost of Maritime Piracy Report, the estimated excess cost of insurance due to Somali Piracy is between $460m and $3.2 bn per year.
War Risk cover has risen dramatically, and shipowners seeking to lower costs and protect their assets, are pushing for as much as 25% discount on war risk policies, by employing armed security guards on board their vessels. As consumers of goods imported into South Africa, we pay a portion of these added expenses in the form of increased costs for these goods. We have an interest in any steps which limit the financial impact of piracy.
While the benefits of such an approach may be self evident, the bureaucratic and administrative complications for a vessel, which calls at multiple ports in numerous different countries, and therefore enters many different legal jurisdictions whilst carrying armed personnel and ammunition, are daunting. Increasingly shipowners and charterers seek advice on the laws applicable in these many jurisdictions, since they have no wish to fall foul of any of the myriad of applicable local laws. It is axiomatic that breaches of the law have potentially dramatic consequences for the individuals involved, but these contraventions also impede the business of international commerce and shipping, introducing avoidable delays and thereby escalating costs.
The relevant provisions of South African law are to be found in the Firearms Control Act (60 of 2000) and in particular section 73, which states, “no person may carry in transit through South Africa any firearms or ammunition without an in-transit permit issued in terms of the Act.” A firearm on board a vessel which calls at a South African port is in transit, even where that weapon remains inside a secure safe on board the vessel throughout her passage through South African waters.
Ordinarily shipowners or charterers appoint independent security companies to provide the guards and their firearms, because such companies have the expertise and experience required to face the pirates in circumstance which often approximate wartime confrontations. These security companies are responsible for obtaining the necessary permits well in advance of the arrival of the weapons in South African waters.
An issue that has arisen recently, which is of great concern to shipowners and the seafarers they employ, concerns the question of whether people other than the security guards, such as the Captain of a vessel, can be held responsible where firearms are brought on board for use by the security guards, but where no permits have been issued. In a recent incident, police boarded a vessel immediately after firearms had been delivered to that vessel, in an apparent sting operation, and it was then discovered that the requisite permits had not been issued. The Master was faced with the possibility of arrest even though he was ignorant of our laws relating to permits, and was completely unaware of the fact that no permits had been obtained in advance. The Master was accused of responsibility for this contravention of the Act by virtue of his position as Captain, being the person in charge of the vessel where the firearms were found at the time. It was only due to the fact that the Master’s evidence may prove useful in future criminal proceedings against the South African company which provided the illegal weapons that the Master avoided being detained and charged under the Act.
It is clear, from this and other similar incidents, that the South African Police have focused their attention on potential violations of firearm laws on board vessels calling at our ports. In circumstances where the proper permits have not been obtained, otherwise innocent parties can be drawn into police operations, resulting in personal hardship, delays and additional costs, all of which ultimately impact on the consumer, already burdened by the costs of piracy.
Janine Lee
South Africa
Source: Lexology
No comments:
Post a Comment