On 12 August 2022, an Equatorial Guinean naval vessel intercepted a Marshall Islands-flagged VLCC in a third state's exclusive economic zone, held it and its 26-person crew for 92 days, and imposed an unlawful fine — all purportedly in the fight against piracy. On 27 May 2026, an ITLOS Special Chamber found those actions to be serious violations of UNCLOS and ordered Equatorial Guinea to pay approximately USD 12.2 million plus EUR 2 million in compensation. This commentary explains the facts, the tribunal's reasoning, and why the ruling matters for shipowners, operators, and their counsel.

I. Background

On 12 August 2022, the Heroic Idun — a Marshall Islands-flagged very large crude carrier (VLCC) — was drifting lawfully in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of São Tomé and Príncipe when it was intercepted by an Equatorial Guinean naval vessel. The naval crew ordered the tanker to stop and follow them to an Equatoguinean port, declaring they had "orders to fire" if the vessel made any "suspicious movement."

The interception followed requests from Nigerian authorities to Equatorial Guinea to "search and seize" the ship on suspicion that it had illegally entered Nigerian territorial waters to load crude oil without authorisation. Acting on that tip, Equatorial Guinea escorted the Heroic Idun to the anchorage at Luba, where it was held immobilised from 13 August until 11 November 2022 — a total of 92 days.

During that period, part of the crew was transferred to a detention centre in Malabo while others remained on board. On 23 September 2022 Equatorial Guinea imposed a fine on the ship's master, which the owners paid on 4 October. The vessel and crew were then transferred to Nigeria, where they remained detained until 27 May 2023, when Nigerian authorities finally released them. The ship sailed to South Africa and then to the UAE for inspection and repairs.

The case centres on one of the most fundamental freedoms in international law: the freedom of navigation on the high seas and in EEZs — and the strict limits on when a coastal state may interfere with a foreign-flagged vessel.

II. ITLOS Jurisdiction 

The Marshall Islands and Equatorial Guinea concluded a special agreement (compromis) on 18 April 2023, jointly submitting their dispute to an ITLOS Special Chamber. Public hearings took place between 6 and 14 October 2025, and judgment was delivered on 27 May 2026 under the presidency of Judge Hoffmann.

III. Key Legal Findings

The Special Chamber addressed several distinct legal questions. Here are the most significant rulings:

Unlawful interception and seizure. Equatorial Guinea violated Articles 87(1), 90 and 92(1) of UNCLOS by stopping and boarding the Heroic Idun under threat of force in a third state's EEZ. Freedom of navigation is a fundamental principle; any exception — including anti-piracy powers — must be interpreted strictly.

Piracy justification rejected. The Chamber held that the Yaoundé Code of Conduct (a regional maritime security framework) cannot grant signatories broader enforcement powers against non-signatory flag states than UNCLOS allows. Critically, Nigerian communications never alleged that the Heroic Idun had acted against another vessel — a prerequisite for piracy under Article 101 UNCLOS. No sufficient grounds existed for the seizure.

Unlawful fine and EEZ enforcement. The fine imposed on the master for entering Equatorial Guinea's EEZ without prior authorisation and for not flying a physical flag violated Articles 56(1), 58, 87, 89 and 92(1) UNCLOS. Coastal states cannot require prior authorisation for vessels transiting their EEZ, nor impose enforcement measures for breach of such requirements.

Crew treatment and forced transfer to Nigeria. The detention conditions and the forcible transfer of the crew to a third state without due process constituted continuing violations attributable to Equatorial Guinea throughout the 92-day detention period.

No obligation to notify the flag state. UNCLOS does not impose a general obligation on a state to notify a flag state when it takes enforcement action against a foreign-flagged vessel.

No violation of Article 225. The Chamber found Equatorial Guinea did not breach Article 225 (duty not to endanger vessels or create hazards at sea) in the circumstances of the case.

On the preliminary jurisdictional challenge, the Chamber confirmed that it could adjudicate Equatorial Guinea's conduct without first determining Nigeria's liability — Nigeria was therefore not an indispensable third party. The local remedies rule did not bar the Marshall Islands' claims because the violations were direct breaches of flag state rights, not merely indirect injuries through the crew.

On the preliminary jurisdictional challenge, the Chamber confirmed that it could adjudicate Equatorial Guinea's conduct without first determining Nigeria's liability — Nigeria was therefore not an indispensable third party. The local remedies rule did not bar the Marshall Islands' claims because the violations were direct breaches of flag state rights, not merely indirect injuries through the crew.

IV. Compensation Awarded

The Chamber limited its award to losses directly caused by Equatorial Guinea's unlawful conduct during the 92-day detention (12 August – 11 November 2022) such as:

Restitution for the unlawful fine

Because the fine imposed on the master had no valid legal basis under UNCLOS, the owners were entitled to recover the full amount paid. This head of damage is essentially restitutionary in character: the aim is to place the claimant back in the financial position it would have occupied had the unlawful enforcement action never taken place.

Operational costs incurred during the detention

Throughout the period the vessel sat idle at Luba, it continued to incur costs as though in normal operation. Bunker fuel consumed, agency fees and port dues levied by the detaining state, and a war-risk insurance surcharge triggered by the vessel's presence in a high-risk zone all fell within this category. Each arose solely because the ship could not depart, and all were awarded in full as foreseeable operational consequences of the unlawful detention.

Crew-related expenditure

The owners incurred a range of additional crew costs as a direct result of the detention. These included overtime wages for the crew throughout the detention period, agents' fees for coordinating shore-side assistance, medical costs for affected crew members, and travel expenses. Once the vessel was finally released, repatriation of the original crew and mobilisation of a replacement crew gave rise to further recoverable expenditure.

Loss of hire

The most substantial head of damage was the loss of charter revenue. A vessel of the Heroic Idun's class commands significant daily hire rates, and enforced idleness across the full detention period translated into a substantial foregone income stream. The Chamber accepted this as a recoverable economic loss flowing directly and foreseeably from the unlawful seizure.

Post-release physical damage to the vessel

Extended immobilisation without proper maintenance left the vessel in a condition that required dry-docking and repair works after its release. The Chamber treated the cost of those works as a downstream consequence of the detention and therefore recoverable, notwithstanding that the expenditure was incurred after the vessel had been freed.

Moral damages for the crew

The Chamber awarded moral damages on behalf of each crew member — individuals who endured detention, separation from their families, and the threat of force for three months through no fault of their own. The award was calculated by reference to a fixed daily rate per person across the full detention period. This head of damage reflects the tribunal's view that states must bear a meaningful financial consequence for the human suffering caused by unlawful enforcement action at sea, and it represents one of the most significant aspects of the judgment for the wider shipping industry.

V.  Takeaways

1. Anti-piracy powers are not a blank cheque.

States invoking piracy to justify a seizure must demonstrate sufficient grounds under UNCLOS Article 101 — including that the target vessel acted against another ship. Vague intelligence from a third state is not enough.

2. Regional frameworks cannot override UNCLOS.

The Yaoundé Code of Conduct, however influential, does not extend coastal state enforcement jurisdiction beyond what the Convention permits.

3. EEZ entry requirements are unlawful.

Coastal states may not demand prior authorisation for vessels transiting their EEZ, nor fine masters for failing to comply with such requirements.

4. Moral damages for crew are recoverable.

The Chamber's award of USD 1,750 per crew member per day for moral harm as a result of the unlawful detentions.

Sources: ITLOS Press Release No. 382 (27 May 2026). This commentary is prepared for general informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. For advice specific to your situation, please contact us.