Court Costs

While the world is searching for a uniform legal framework to put Somali pirates out of business on the East African coast, Kenya seems to have been left alone to handle captured pirates in its already backlogged legal system.

The more peculiar aspect of this scenario is that none of Kenyas vessels has been attacked nor have any of these attacks happened in Kenyas internal, territorial or economic zone waters.

It is an open secret why these pirates are being sent to Kenya: it is because of the robust legal framework Kenya owns compared to most of its neighbours.

In Kenya, these suspects are likely to get representation, the right to question their accusers and all other due process rights.

However, these trials come at a cost to Kenyas judicial system.

It is an added cost to an already cash strapped legal system and the fact that these crimes happened in other jurisdictions adds insult to injury.

The United States and the European Union both signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with Kenya in 2009 which stipulated ways of paying for these trials, the maintenance and upkeep of suspects while on trial (and in the event of conviction).

The legal bills necessary to conduct these trials could run into millions.

More money will be required to house and feed the suspects before and during trial and since these crimes could easily carry life sentences, additional money would be required for their upkeep in prison if convicted.

It would be unfair to have Kenya shoulder these costs for crimes committed on other nations in international waters. Western nations ships and vessels are often the target of piracy.

A recent United Nations report stated that one of the reasons for heightened piracy in the Somalia waters is illegal fishing and toxic waste dumping in the waters of the country by foreign vessels, mostly European and Asian vessels.

This has in turn forced local fishermen to branch further into the sea.

Other vigilante Somali groups started surveillance in their waters in the hope of capturing these foreign vessels and finally by sheer chance, the lucrative piracy business was reinvented.

Few people support piracy, it is a crime and perpetrators should be held accountable to the fullest extent of the law in whichever legal jurisdiction they are tried in, but that doesnt negate the fact that there is an underlying problem that has to be fixed in order to curtail this vice for good.

Every nation with vessels passing through the Horn of Africa should toughen laws to combat illegal fishing and dumping of toxic waste on other nations waters.

Violators of these provisions should be tried in their home countries just as they would if they committed similar crimes at home.

While no nation has legal jurisdiction over international waters, most Western nations (particularly the US), have laws already in place that protect US owned or operated air and sea traffic.

A perfect example is the hijacking of the Maersk Alabama in April 2009.

President Obama ordered the US Navy to the location to rescue kidnapped Americans and their vessel.

Since most of the pirated vessels are from wealthy nations, they should organise their own rescues and formulate ways to try these suspects in their home countries thereby shouldering the costs.

The Netherlands and Yemen have led the way in trying many pirate suspects back home.

The US has arrested one, who is awaiting trial in New York.

The United Nations office of Drugs and Crimes is the only international organisation charged with overseeing the piracy problem in the Horn of Africa.

In this capacity, it should take a more active role in soliciting funds for the Nairobi trials.

Lukewarm support to the Kenya government is not beneficial to either parties.

Recently, the head of UNODC in Nairobi said that his office could only finance the pirate suspects when the judge determines the suspect doesnt have a lawyer.

But how will a 20 year old pirate suspect from a foreign country, captured in international waters find a lawyer in Nairobi?

Shouldnt legal representation funds be automatically set aside either by UNODC or the vessels country of origin.

Why do the involved parties make some things that are so easy so complicated?

There is nothing intricate about this and we absolutely do not need a drawn out fight to remedy it.

If funding for a public defender in the United States were withheld for whatever reason, that would be grounds for a mis-trial.

A trial of a single suspect in Nairobi would be peanuts to a US, Germany or Russian budget.

It is either they shoulder the cost or Kenya stops accepting any more pirate suspects.

A nation has total control over its internal and territorial waters, but it certainly doesnt have control over its neighbours waters or crimes that happen under another nations jurisdiction.

Karanja is a financial controller based in Los Angeles, USA.

Source:shiptalk