Tag: Kenya-Somalia maritime dispute

  • ICJ Was Misadvised In Using Land Sites In Its Verdict

    ICJ Was Misadvised In Using Land Sites In Its Verdict

    By KamauMbote

    On Tuesday 12th October 2021 millions of Kenya and Somali nationals watched in abated breathe as the International Court of Justice judges delivered their verdict in the Maritime Delimitation in the Indian Ocean (Somalia V. Kenya).

    Whereas the tone right from the start of the ruling and prior withdrawals from the case by Kenya suggested Somalia would carry the day I listened keenly to understand the court’s ruling on issues raised by Kenya especially the effect on livelihoods to people living near the Kenya-Somalia border.

    This as our team has, over the past twenty-four months, engaged in research on the effects such a ruling would have on the fisherfolk who depend on the Lamu archipelago (disputed area) for their daily livelihood.

    It was however not lost to me that the judges who sit at the Hague had little knowledge of this area as never in the period of the case did the ICJ send a fact-finding team to the disputed area to get first-hand knowledge of the people and their way of life.

    In the course of our research, we were able to visit the Kenya Somalia border both by road and by sea and experience directly how the Banjuni community carry on their day-to-day activities and also understand the relationships existing among the two communities across the border.

    It was unforgivable however for the court to make its pronouncement based on the fishing landing sites rather than the fishing sites given the well-known security situation in the Boni Forest borders the neighbouring villages located next to the ocean.

    To start with Kenya had raised a very valid contention in regards to the “devastating repercussions for the livelihoods and economic well-being of Kenya’s fisherfolk who are said to depend on fisheries in coastal areas near the Kenya-Somalia boundary.”

    During our research which is well documented, we established that villages such as Ishakani, Kiunga all the distance to Kiwayu depended on fishing as their main economic activity accounting for more than 80% of their household income.

    The area also attracts fishermen from as far as Msambweni in Kenya’s south coast and those from the Pemba Island in Tanzania.

    According to the Lamu Beach Management Unit Network which represents fishermen and oversees landing sites from Lamu County the disputed area accounted for more than 65% of the entire county catch with the rest originating from smaller fishing sites in the ocean as well as freshwater sources including rivers and lakes.

    Kenya therefore in its fifth relevant circumstance to be taken into account by the court told the ICJ that in need for the equitable access to those natural resources therefore required the adjustment of the provisional equidistance line to the parallel of latitude.

    A landing site is described by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization as the first point of sale for products and provides a place where fishers can leave their boats and obtain supplies such as food, fuel and ice.

    In such a case this would have been at the extreme tip of the Kenya Somali border commonly referred as to Dar es Salaam point which for security reasons has had numerous logistical and infrastructural challenges.

    This stretch all the way to Mkokoni a landmass largely covered by the Boni forest has seen the brunt of Somalia’s expansionist agenda in the 1970’s and thereafter the fall of Said Barre.

    This area has then seen no real peace for the past 58 years with the Kenyan government in 1964 dissolving all the affected villages by the Shifta war which included Ishakani, Kiunga, Mwambore, Rubu, Simambaye, Mvundeni, Ashuwei, Matironi, Mkokoni,Vumbe, Saadani, Kiangwe, Ndhununi and Bodhei.

    Due to these reasons it is very clear on the lack of landing sites but does not indicate the less importance of the area.

    With Lamu East sub-county largely relying on this waters for fish by more than 80% it beats logic how the court did not find how its decision would “likely . . . entail catastrophic repercussions for the livelihood and economic well-being of the population of the countries concerned”.

    The ruling ascertains concerns by Lamu fishermen who had called on the court to allow them to participate in the case severally culminating in a large protest in March 2021.

    An interaction with the fishermen would have brought it out that there are over 40 landing sites in the Lamu archipelago more than double the court considered.

    Further, due to the remoteness and large distance to market fish in these sites fetch lower prices thus many fishermen prefer landing sites in Faza, Amu town, Malindi and Mombasa.

    With many parties calling for negotiations among the two countries the fate of the thousands of fishermen must now be in the hands of diplomatic agencies across both sides in consideration that both sides need each other and the Bajuni nation knows no boundaries.

    Disclaimer! Views expressed in this article do not necessarily represent those of Kenya Insights.

  • Uhuru Rejects ICJ Verdict, Vows To Protect Kenya’s Territory By All Means

    Uhuru Rejects ICJ Verdict, Vows To Protect Kenya’s Territory By All Means

    President Uhuru Kenyatta has vowed to protect and preserve Kenya’s territory by all means.

    Responding to Tuesday ruling by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) that largely favours Somalia in its dispute with Kenya, President Kenyatta tore into the judgment firmly stating that Kenya rejects it in totality and would not recognise the court’s findings.

    “While Kenya is not surprised at the decision, it is profoundly concerned by the import of the decision and its implications for the Horn of Africa region, and international law generally…The decision embodies a perpetuation of the ICJ’s jurisdictional overreach and raises a fundamental question on the respect of the sovereignty and consent of States to international judicial processes. International tribunals have jurisdiction ONLY to the extent of CONSENT by a State” he said in a strongly-worded statement issued from the US moments after addressing a United Nations Security Council meeting.

    He assured as the commander in chief, he was committed to solving the issue amicably while urging for calm stating that the government was seized of the matter.

    “I do not intend to abrogate my solemn oath; and, I will do everything possible as President and Commander-in-Chief, to preserve the territory of this our great Republic and bequeath the same, intact and unencumbered, to the next President when my term expires in less than a year’s time” he said.

    He noted that the judgement would obviously strain the relations between the two countries.

    “Kenya and Somalia are neighbouring States, with a common border, and communities with shared social, cultural and religious practices. This decision is, in the circumstances, a zero-sum game, which will strain the relations between the two countries. It will also reverse the social, political and economic gains; and potentially aggravate the peace and security situation in the fragile Horn of Africa Region” he pointed out.

    He called on the international community to respect Kenya’s sovereignty and her inherent right to protects its territory by all means.

    “Kenya, like other independent Countries, possesses a determined geographical territory. As a devoted member of the United Nations, the United Nations Security Council as well as the African Union’s Peace and Security Council, we beseech the rest of the family of Nations to appreciate and respect our inherent right to protect, by all available means, our territory” said the head of state.

    He said Kenya will pursue the matter through the institutions of the African Union such as the African Union Border Programme and its Peace and Security, architecture, in addition to other bilateral arrangements.

    “Nonetheless, Kenya is committed to a diplomatic solution of the current impasse. In this regard, Kenya, as a key proponent of respect for the principle of subsidiarity as a catalyst for African Solutions for African Problems, will resolve this matter through the institutions of the African Union such as the African Union Border Programme and its Peace and Security, architecture, in addition to other bilateral arrangements”

  • Court Rules In Favor Of Somalia In Maritime Border Row With Kenya

    Court Rules In Favor Of Somalia In Maritime Border Row With Kenya

    The UN’s top court has ruled largely in favour of Somalia in its long-running dispute with Kenya over their maritime border.

    Kenya said on Friday that in addition to withdrawing its participation from the current case, it had joined many other members of the U.N. in withdrawing its recognition of the Court’s compulsory jurisdiction.

    It previously accused the International Court of Justice of bias and said it will not accept the ruling.

    The case concerned a 38,000 sq mile (100,000 sq km) triangle in the Indian Ocean that is thought to be rich in oil and gas.

    The dispute has been at the heart of a diplomatic row between the neighbours.

    For the past four decades, Kenya has said a line due east of the point where the two countries meet at the coast represents the maritime border.

    Somalia, however, argued in court that the sea frontier should follow on in the same direction as the land border.

    The panel of 14 judges sitting in The Hague said that Kenya had not proved that Somalia had previously agreed to its claimed border.

    Instead, they drew a new line which has split the disputed area in two.

    But with Kenya refusing to recognise the ICJ’s jurisdiction it is not now clear what will happen. The court has no means to enforce its rulings.

    In 2009, the two countries had agreed in a memorandum of understanding, backed by the UN, to settle the boundary dispute through negotiation.

    But five years later, Somalia said the talks had failed and it went to the ICJ instead. The Reuters news agency reports that Somalia was angered by Kenya selling exploration licenses in the disputed zone to two multinationals in 2012.

    The court is supposed to be the final arbiter in disputes between nations.

    Kenya argued unsuccessfully that the ICJ should not be involved as the memorandum of understanding was binding.

    Then in March it refused to take part in hearings after having asked for a delay to brief a new legal team.

    It also objected to the presence on the ICJ panel of a Somali judge, saying he should recuse himself.

    Last week, Kenya’s government described the case as a “flawed judicial process”. It added that there was “inherent bias” and that the court was an unsuitable way to resolve the dispute.