When fear becomes the dominant force in public policy, compassion, justice and proportionality are often the first casualties. Laws that were originally devised to protect people fleeing oppressive regimes and hostile environments are increasingly being applied in ways that can work against those seeking protection. Like the magician’s sleight of hand, truth and justice have been inverted. Those trying to survive exploitation and terrorism are increasingly regarded in pejorative terms.
Africa’s diverse histories have been shaped by colonial legacies, unequal economic relationships and, in some cases, external interference in political affairs. These factors, alongside domestic governance failures and conflict, have contributed to instability and displacement in parts of the continent.
The legal limbo of the El Hiblu 3, in Malta, is an example of where the label of terrorist has been applied to three young people whose supporters argue should instead have been recognised primarily as victims of exploitation and circumstances beyond their control. When three teenagers, Amara,15 years; Kadar,16 years; and Abdalla 19 years; acted as interpreters in a volatile situation aboard the El Hiblu 1, March 2019, they were accused of being ringleaders in an alleged hijacking of the merchant tanker.
The three teenagers did not know each other prior to the incident on the El Hiblu 1. Amara and Abdalla were from Guinea and Kadar was from the Ivory Coast. In 2019 when Amara and Abdalla with his pregnant wife, left Guinea, Amnesty International reports indicate that high political tensions plagued the country. These tensions led to severe human rights violations where excessive force with live ammunition, arrests and arbitrary detention, was used against protesters. In addition to violations against protesters, large scale mining and infrastructure projects (such as the Souapiti Dam), displaced thousands of local farmers leaving families without adequate compensation or alternative livelihoods.
The human rights situation along the Ivory Coast in 2019, from where Kadar began his journey, was marginally better. Although earlier conflicts involving war crimes, including rape and murder by armed groups and abuses by elements of the military, left villages fragmented and families traumatised by fears of renewed conflict.
The three teenagers each made difficult journeys across Africa before reaching Libya. It was from Libya they embarked upon their sea voyage to Europe. When the overloaded, deflated rubber boat, carrying over a hundred passengers, including women and children, was at serious risk of sinking, the captain of the El Hiblu 1, a merchant tanker carrying petroleum products, was alerted and came to their rescue. While the captain’s actions were humanitarian and within international law, with Europe’s current anti-migrant policies, the captain’s actions placed him in an untenable situation. While International Law Obligations state that ships and governments must rescue people in distress at sea, state policies from within the European Union increasingly restrict and penalise these humanitarian operations.
A recent film, 23,000 Lives, brings home the reality of such mixed government messaging. The film portrays the true story of a group of young Berliners, who against all odds, set out to purchase a ship in order to rescue asylum seekers in distress while attempting to cross the Mediterranean to Europe. The crew of the rescue ship, not only faced physical risks from Libyan militias and stormy weather conditions, but were brought before a court and accused of ‘people trafficking’. Were they to have been found guilty they could have faced long-term imprisonment.
It has been reported by human rights organisations that the European Union and member states, fund harshly run detention centres in Libya, train, and equip third-country actors like the Libyan Coast Guard to intercept migrants at sea in a pushback operation to return them to North Africa. One can only speculate about the personal dilemma faced by the captain of the El Hiblu 1. Having rescued the distressed asylum seekers from drowning, the Captain’s reported initial decision, contrary to international law, was to follow European Union policy and return his passengers to Libya.
Within International law there is a ‘Prohibition of Refoulement’, which clearly states that rescued people cannot be returned to any place where their lives or freedoms are threatened. International guidelines state that they must be brought to a place of safety. Contrary to this law, no specific default nation is designated under maritime law to accept them.
Libya, destabilised in 2011 after the uprising and intervention of Britain and France, has become an extremely dangerous place for many people seeking asylum. Widespread reports of rape, slavery, torture and death of people seeking asylum are well documented by human rights organisations. Under no circumstances can Libya be considered to be a place of safety, especially for those who have attempted a failed escape.
The rescued passengers on the El Hiblu 1 were told that they were to be taken to a place of safety. However as dawn approached passengers recognised the coastline of Tripoli. Realising that they were in imminent danger of being returned to Libya, panic took hold. Many threatened to jump overboard believing it was better to drown than to face torture by the Libyan authorities.
Tensions were high and communication difficult. Amara had earlier been identified by the first mate, as someone who spoke English and was invited to become the interpreter. Later Kadar and Abdalla were also asked to assist. Supporters regard the teenagers as having helped prevent a tragedy.
The young communicators, interpreting the wishes of fellow passengers, convinced the Captain of the El Hiblu 1, to take them to the nearest safe destination. No weapons were involved, although the level of panic among passengers likely engendered concern among the crew. Prior to the ship’s arrival in Malta the captain is alleged to have claimed the El Hiblu 1, was no longer under his control. As evidence was collected, later testimonies cast credible doubt on this assertion.
Upon arrival in Malta the three teenagers were singled out by the authorities. Charged with multiple crimes under terrorist laws that carry numerous custodial life sentences, they were held for eight months in a maximum security adult prison. They have since been released on bail conditions with restrictions on movement and a requirement to report daily to police. After repeated court hearings, and at the insistence of lawyers along with public pressure, in 2021 fellow passengers from the ship were eventually called to give testimony. At the time of writing this the case has not been resolved. Amara and Abdalla are still living in limbo in Malta, having abided by their bail conditions. Kadar’s situation is more precarious since he left for the UK and is currently held in detention and remains at risk of extradition to Malta. They all face the threat of long prison sentences if found guilty.
The case of the El Hiblu prosecution has raised serious humanitarian concerns. What it demonstrates is how a fear driven migration policy has become increasingly restrictive with humanitarian actors sometimes facing criminal investigations. As a deterrence for others who might want to attempt the journey, into what many regard as a safe haven, people in distress at sea are increasingly being abandoned. Asylum seekers, who survive these journeys and make it to Europe are further penalised and often placed in detention centres where the risk of deportation hangs over them.
Malta’s legitimate challenges as a small island state on one of Europe’s main migration routes do not remove the obligation to protect people fleeing danger; both realities can exist at the same time. The El Hiblu 3 case is ultimately not only about migration, maritime law or criminal proceedings, it is about the choices societies make when confronted by people who are easy to fear, ignore or judge. A humane society is not defined by whether it faces difficult challenges, but by how it responds to those who are the most vulnerable within them.
People do not leave their families and undertake dangerous journeys without good cause. Involuntary migration is a complex human reality, shaped by conflict, inequality, exploitation and political instability. Addressing these causes requires honesty about global responsibilities and the unequal forces that shape people’s choices. Holding those with the least power responsible for circumstances they did not create may be politically convenient, but it does little to address the fears, conflicts and inequalities that forced them to leave in the first place.