Beneficial owners of vessels and state responsibility for illegal fishing

Beneficial owners of vessels and state responsibility for illegal fishing

by | Aug 2, 2026 | JOGA 2025, JOLGA

Beneficial owners of vessels and state responsibility for illegal fishing

Author: P van Welzen

ISSN: 2521-5442
Affiliations: Senior Consultant, CMS South Africa, Qualified Advocaat (Netherlands) and Solicitor (England and Wales)
Source: Journal of Ocean Law and Governance in Africa, 2025, p. 168 – 203
https://doi.org/10.47348/JOGA/2025/a6

Download PDF

Share

Cite this article

P van Welzen
Beneficial owners of vessels and state responsibility for illegal fishing
Journal of Ocean Law and Governance in Africa, pp 168 – 203 (2025)
https://doi.org/10.47348/JOGA/2025/a6

 

Abstract

Many African coastal States suffer the adverse impacts of illegal fishing in their exclusive economic zones. The situation is aggravated by the failure of States to act against violations of fisheries regulations by vessels flying their flag. In its advisory opinion of 2015, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea determined that a vessel’s flag State has a due diligence obligation to take necessary measures to ensure that vessels flying its flag comply with such regulations. However, due to the limitations imposed by international law on enforcement jurisdiction, a flag State may not be able to enforce its measures against persons located abroad. It is suggested that coastal States should also hold beneficial owners of vessels responsible for violations of their fisheries regulations. There are strong arguments under international law that the States in which the beneficial owners of fishing vessels are located have an obligation to take measures against such owners if their vessels engage in illegal fishing. Including vessel owner States in combating illegal fishing could make it more difficult for the persons benefiting from them to engage in such activities.

Beneficial owners of vessels and state responsibility for illegal fishing

The role of coastal indigenous communities in circular economy practices

by | Aug 2, 2026 | JOGA 2025, JOLGA

The role of coastal indigenous communities in circular economy practices

Author: L Nqunqa

ISSN: 2521-5442
Affiliations: South African International Maritime Institute
Source: Journal of Ocean Law and Governance in Africa, 2025, p. 204 – 230
https://doi.org/10.47348/JOGA/2025/a7

Download PDF

Share

Cite this article

L Nqunqa
The role of coastal indigenous communities in circular economy practices
Journal of Ocean Law and Governance in Africa, pp 204 – 230 (2025)
https://doi.org/10.47348/JOGA/2025/a7

 

Abstract

Circular Economy (CE) is now seen as transformative approach to addressing environmental and economic challenges. While most of the attention is placed on industrial and large-scale operations, coastal indigenous communities have been upholding circularity for decades through indigenous knowledge systems that emphasise environmental stewardship and regeneration resources. This paper explores the role of coastal indigenous communities in circular economy practices. A great emphasis is placed on the importance of traditional knowledge in sustainable management of resources. The paper highlights the longstanding integration of circular economy principles within indigenous livelihoods and explores how the modern circular economy can benefit from these practices. The paper adopts a qualitative approach to identify key themes such as ocean pollution, policy frameworks, economic growth and the potential of recognising indigenous knowledge CE perspectives into sustainability strategies. The key findings of the paper lay out the importance of policy support in recognising indigenous knowledge contributions and the necessity for a bottom-up approach in implementation.

Beneficial owners of vessels and state responsibility for illegal fishing

Blockchain Technology: Exploring Opportunities, Challenges, and Applications by S Vyas, V K Shukla, S Gupta & A Prasad (Eds) 1 ed (2022)

by | Aug 2, 2026 | JOGA 2025, JOLGA

Blockchain Technology: Exploring Opportunities, Challenges, and Applications by S Vyas, V K Shukla, S Gupta & A Prasad (Eds) 1 ed (2022)

Author: R F Mahmoud

ISSN: 2521-5442
Affiliations: Faculty of Law, University of Ilorin, Nigeria
Source: Journal of Ocean Law and Governance in Africa, 2025, p. 231 – 237
https://doi.org/10.47348/JOGA/2025/a8

Download PDF

Share

Cite this article

R F Mahmoud
Blockchain Technology: Exploring Opportunities, Challenges, and Applications by S Vyas, V K Shukla, S Gupta & A Prasad (Eds) 1 ed (2022)
Journal of Ocean Law and Governance in Africa, pp 231 – 237 (2025)
https://doi.org/10.47348/JOGA/2025/a8

 

Abstract

None

Disclosures of Acquisitions and Disposals as Shareholder Protection Measures in South Africa: An Appraisal of the Disclosure Provisions Against the Regulation in the United States of America, the United Kingdom, and Zimbabwe

by | Jul 26, 2026 | JCLA, JCLA V13 I1 2026

Disclosures of Acquisitions and Disposals as Shareholder Protection Measures in South Africa: An Appraisal of the Disclosure Provisions Against the Regulation in the United States of America, the United Kingdom, and Zimbabwe

Author: Justice Mudzamiri

ISSN: 2521-2605
Affiliations: LLB (Fort Hare), LLM (University of Johannesburg), LLD (Fort Hare). Attorney of the High
Court of South Africa. Senior Lecturer in the Department of Mercantile and Labour Law, Faculty of Law, University of the Western Cape
Source: Journal of Comparative Law in Africa, Volume 13 Issue 1, p. 1-23
https://doi.org/10.47348/JCLA/v13/i1a1

Abstract

This article accepts that shareholders must have the right to access information on any ‘substantial’ acquisition or disposal of beneficial interests in issued securities of a class in a ‘regulated company’ that reaches or exceeds statutorily prescribed thresholds in varied jurisdictions. The study compares the regulation of disclosure of securities acquisitions and disposals in South Africa with that of the United Kingdom (UK), the United States of America (US), and Zimbabwe. Of the four jurisdictions, from a shareholder perspective, the US has more organised and stratified takeover regulation with the potential to identify acquirers and learn about their intentions as early as possible if their acquisitions meet statutorily prescribed thresholds. The US takeover regulation enables the target directors and shareholders to start negotiations with the acquirer(s) who intend to take over the company in the future, by circumventing and mitigating tactics by the acquirers to gain creeping control to ‘divide and conquer’ the target shareholders. The South African and UK takeover regulations protect shareholders’ interests by ensuring that persons who dispose of and/or acquire securities reaching the prescribed threshold notify the requisite stakeholders. To further strengthen their takeover regulations, both South Africa and the UK can import lessons from the US, as proposed in this article. This article submits that the Zimbabwean takeover regulation on disclosures of securities disposals and purchases is inappropriate and inadequate from the perspective of shareholders’ interests; hence, a proposal for its overhaul through repeal and replacement with functional statutory provisions is suggested.

Rethinking Nolle Prosequi in Ghana: Transparency, Judicial Review, and Lessons From Comparative Jurisprudence

by | Jul 26, 2026 | JCLA, JCLA V13 I1 2026

Rethinking Nolle Prosequi in Ghana: Transparency, Judicial Review, and Lessons From Comparative Jurisprudence

Author: Francis Ontoyin

ISSN: 2521-2605
Affiliations: BA, LLB (Ghana), LLM (Canada), Barrister and Solicitor (Ontario, Canada) and Ghana.
Lecturer, School of Law, University of Ghana (Ghana). Partner, Merton & Everett LLP (Ghana)
Source: Journal of Comparative Law in Africa, Volume 13 Issue 1, p. 24-57
https://doi.org/10.47348/JCLA/v13/i1a2

Abstract

In February 2025, the Attorney-General of Ghana announced reasons for discontinuing high-profile cases involving former Government officials and businesspeople. Article 88 of the Constitution of Ghana, 1992, gives the Attorney-General the power to conduct prosecutions on behalf of the State, including the discretion to enter nolle prosequi. In Afoko v Attorney-General [2019] DLSC 6356, the Supreme Court of Ghana affirmed the exercise of this discretion as an executive act, not subject to article 296(c), which requires non-judicial officers to publish regulations governing their discretion. This article argues that the Supreme Court missed an opportunity to address a fundamental constitutional question: whether the exercise of the power of nolle prosequi is subject to judicial review under article 296(a) and (b), which mandate fairness, candour, and nonarbitrariness in discretionary acts. By confining its analysis to article 296(c), the Court did not evaluate the Attorney-General’s prosecutorial discretion against the broader constitutional and administrative law standards required by articles 23 and 296(a) and (b). The article further contends that decisions to enter nolle prosequi are, in principle, reviewable in all cases, and that, where the Attorney-General gives reasons, courts should assess the reasonableness of those reasons against constitutional and administrative standards. Drawing on common law jurisdictions, this article outlines the conditions for reviewing prosecutorial discretion and proposes a structured standard of review inspired by the Canadian reasonableness doctrine, as articulated in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov [2019] SCC 65.