Connect with us

News

Activists slam Lanka’s bid to seek X-Press Pearl compensation in Singapore

Published

on

The second interim environmental assessment report compiled by the MEPA-convened expert committee priced the environmental damage from the X-Press Pearl disaster at $6.4 billion. Image courtesy of the Ministry of Justice.

(Mongabay) Environmental activists have questioned the decision to file for compensation in Singapore instead of Sri Lanka for a 2021 ship sinking that became the worst maritime disaster in the country’s history, saying there’s less likelihood of winning adequate compensation overseas.

The Sri Lankan government is filing a lawsuit in Singapore for compensation nearly two years since the worst maritime disaster in the country’s history. But activists say it waited too long and would have stood a better chance of adequate compensation had the lawsuit been filed in Sri Lanka.

Speaking before parliament on April 25, Justice Minister Wijeyadasa Rajapakshe confirmed that the Department of the Attorney General had filed legal action before Singapore’s International Commercial Courts (SICC) to claim compensation for the extensive environmental damage caused by the burning and sinking of the Singapore-flagged freight ship the X-Press Pearl in May 2021.

“The decision to lodge the lawsuit in Singapore courts was done in consultation with a group of independent local and international lawyers as Singapore’s legal system is better equipped to handle this type of complex maritime legal battles,” Rajapakshe said.

The sinking of the fire-stricken ship, carrying tons of plastic pellets and toxic chemicals, is considered Sri Lanka’s worst maritime disaster to date. The plastic pellets, known as nurdles, fouled an extensive arc of Sri Lanka’s southwestern shore, with volunteer crews hard at work cleaning up the billions of grain-sized pellets for months on end.

A 40-member expert committee convened by the Marine Environment Protection Authority (MEPA) to assess the environmental damage issued its second interim report in January this year, in which it put a price on the disaster: $6.4 billion.

Maritime rules require a claim for compensation to be filed within two years of the occurrence of the accident. The Singapore-flagged X-Press Pearl caught fire in Sri Lankan waters on May 20, 2021, and sank several days later. But the long wait without filing action has caused anxiety among activists, who have criticized the government for not moving fast enough.

Part of the delay was due to the complexity of the environmental assessment. There was very little baseline data for the expert committee to compare against, especially in the maritime context, which required them to assess damage scenarios over the short, mid- and long terms, said Dharshanie Lahandapura, former chair of the MEPA.

The group of experts continues to monitor the impacts of pollution caused by the disaster. The National Aquatic Resources Research and Development Agency (NARA) is also monitoring impacts to the marine environment, while the Department of Wildlife Conservation (DWC) is assessing the fallout on marine life, Lahandapura told Mongabay.

Based on the future findings, there could be more claims, given that the nurdles and other chemicals are likely to have long-lasting effects, Lahandapura said.

But waiting until just weeks before the two-year deadline “is unacceptable as the strategy should be to file it first without waiting for the outcome of the expert committee evaluation,” said Ravindranath Dabare, a lawyer and chair of the Centre for Environmental Justice (CEJ), a Colombo-based NGO.

“Within the first week of the X-Press Pearl disaster, CEJ filed the first case in local courts to push the authorities to take necessary actions, and subsequently two more cases to expedite the proceedings as the work was lagging,” Dabare told Mongabay.

The X-Press Pearl accident occurred within a few kilometers of the Colombo coast, well within Sri Lanka’s jurisdiction. That renders “the shipping company … a part of our local case and their representatives do participate in the court hearings, so there was no barrier to filing a case in Sri Lankan courts,” Dabare said.

He added the evidence is available in Sri Lanka, as are the experts who conducted the environmental damage assessment. Hiring Singapore-based lawyers will incur a higher cost, in addition to the cost of overseas travel — something Sri Lanka can ill afford as it reels from the worst economic  crisis in its history, Dabare said.

“The existing Marine Environment Protection Act and the general law have provisions that enable Sri Lanka to file the lawsuit locally,” said Dan Malika Gunasekera, an expert on international maritime law.

He also noted there’s a limit to the amount of compensation that Sri Lanka can claim when lodging the case in Singapore.

“We must get the compensation from the insurer of the X-Press Pearl, who is in the United Kingdom, and on this basis, it may be better to file in the U.K. than Singapore,” Gunasekera told Mongabay.

Even then, the U.K. would also limit compensation to 19.5 million pounds ($24 million). In Sri Lanka, however, there would be no such cap.

Justice Minister Rajapakshe said the government would appoint a British lawyer to negotiate the compensation limitation set in the U.K. for the insurers. He reiterated the position that prospects for a favorable outcome are better in those overseas courts than in Sri Lanka.

Rajapakshe pointed to the case of the oil tanker New Diamond, which caught fire off Sri Lanka’s eastern coast about eight months before the X-Press Pearl incident. Three compensation claims were filed in Sri Lanka’s commercial courts in the New Diamond case, but they came up against various constraints. This, Rajapakshe said, influenced the decision to take the X-Press Pearl case before the Singapore courts.

Ayesh Ranawaka, a maritime expert and former commissioned officer with the Sri Lankan Navy, agreed that the Singapore courts represented a better chance of getting justice in the X-Press Pearl case. This doesn’t mean the local justice system is weak, he told Mongabay, just that there are too many disagreements at the local level about how to proceed.

If the Sri Lankan position is divided, the other party can take advantage of that, Ranawaka said. But when filing in Singapore, the Sri Lankan parties would at least come to a common position. They would also have international laws to fall back on, so the opportunity for justice may be higher, Ranawaka said.

As the government and activists debate what should be the correct course of action to demand compensation, it’s clear that Sri Lanka needs a clear strategy to handle these kinds of marine disasters, Ranawaka said.

“Sri Lanka needs to look beyond the X-Press Pearl incident and treat it as an eye-opener to ensure a proper maritime policy to avoid future mishaps,” he said.



Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

News

PAFFREL raises concerns over Anti-Corruption (Amendment) Bill

Published

on

Anura and Rohana

Executive Director of People’s Action for Free and Fair Elections (PAFFREL) Rohana Hettiarachchi yesterday (28) said that there were three major concerns regarding the Anti-Corruption (Amendment) Bill 2026. Acknowledging the recent Supreme Court determination, in respect of the above-mentioned Bill, that three of the provisions were not consistent with the Constitution, requiring a special majority in Parliament, with one clause requiring approval by the people at a Referendum, Hettiarachchi said nonetheless PAFFREL had decided to bring their concerns to the notice of President Anura Kumara Dissanayake.

Responding to The Island queries, Hettiarachchci said that PAFFREL sent a letter, dated 24 Sept., to President Dissanayake, regarding the issue at hand.

Petitions against the Bill was heard before a three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court, comprising Justices Shiran Gooneratne, Mahinda Samayawardena and Sampath Wijeratne.

PAFFREL and Transparency International Sri Lanka (TISL) were among the petitioners who challenged the proposed amendments to the Anti-Corruption Act No. 9 of 2023. “We did so in public interest,” Hettiarachchchi said, adding that three major concerns were (i) the breadth of the proposed redaction power and the proposed criminalisation of certain uses of publicly accessible redacted asset declarations, particularly in relation to freedom of expression, and the public’s right to meaningfully receive and impart information (ii) raising of the State or public-corporation shareholding threshold for certain asset declaration obligations from 25% to 50%, as this could exclude officers of State-linked entities in which the State holds less than 50%, in spite of such entities exercising public functions and managing public resources and (iii)role of the Director General Ranga Dissanayake.

Hettiarachchchi emphasised that though the PARREL appreciated the way CIABOC DG handled his responsibilities, centreing of power on one person was not acceptable.

Hettiarachchi urged President Dissanayake and the 159-member government parliamentary group to pay attention to concerns raised by those who moved court against the controversial Bill and address their concerns though the Parliament received the SC determination.

An International Monetary Fund mission that visited Colombo recently warned that the proposed amendments could weaken the country’s anti-corruption framework.

The mission, led by Evan Papageorgiou, was in the country from 10 to 23 September for discussions on the seventh review of the Extended Fund Facility and the 2026 Article IV consultation. (SF)

Continue Reading

News

First cases taken up by SC after enactment of 22A dismissed

Published

on

The Supreme Court yesterday (28) dismissed two petitions filed by retired Flight Lieutenant Shantha Jayathilake against Deputy Inspector General of Police of the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) Shani Abeysekara and Secretary to the Ministry of Public Security Ravi Seneviratne, and Rev. Father Cyril Gamini, alleging them of committing contempt of court.

They were the first cases dealt by the Supreme Court after the enactment of the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution.

The recipient of gallantry medal alleged that contempt of court had been committed through an affidavit previously submitted to the Supreme Court by Shani Abeysekara and Ravi Seneviratne.

The other petition alleged that contempt of court had been committed through the contents of a complaint submitted to the Criminal Investigation Department by Rev. Father Cyril Gamini.

The Supreme Court ordered that both petitions be dismissed without being taken up for hearing.

Continue Reading

News

Now NR named 4th suspect in Krrish case

Published

on

Namal

The Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption (CIABOC) yesterday (28) named former Minister and leader of the SLPP parliamentary group Namal Rajapaksa as the fourth suspect in the Krrish case before the Colombo Chief Magistrate’s Court.

The MP was named as the fourth suspect in the wake of the arrest and remanding of former Executive Officer and Director of the Krrish Group, Janaki Siriwardena, regarding the payment of Rs. 70 mn to Namal Rajapaksa to facilitate the land transaction. Police arrested Ms. Siriwardena on 24 September and she was remanded till 6 Oct. pending investigations.

The investigation focuses on 4.3 acre land development in the Fort area that began in the 2013-2014 period. Investigations were launched in 2016 by the Yahapalana government, following a complaint lodged by Wasantha Samarasinghe, now a Minister in the current Cabinet.

The Indian company in this controversy is Krrish Transworks Colombo (Pvt.) Ltd .

The CIABOC named Namal Rajapaksa as a suspect in the Krrish case while he was remanded over two cases in respect of Airbus bribery probe. (SF)

Continue Reading

Trending