Princess Ashika disaster's death toll of 74 passengers and crew made it the nation's worst shipping tragedy to date. Photo: TNews.

Pacific Scoop:
By Pesi Fonua in Nuku’alofa

Due diligence is the normal process prior to the purchasing of anything, the manager of the regional maritime programme of the Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC), Captain John Hogan, has told Tonga’s Royal Commission of Inquiry into the sinking of the Princess Ashika.

At the same time, by looking at the deficiency list and photos of the Ashika, it was clearly unseaworthy.

The interisland ferry Princess Ashika sank on 5 August 2009 with the loss of 74 lives in Tonga’s worth maritime tragedy.

The witness, who has an extensive maritime experience in the region, was questioned by the Assisting Counsel to Commission Manuel Varitimos and shown the deficiency list, including photographs of the sunken Ashika.

Counsel Varitimos suggested that by seeing deficiency list it was clear the vessel was unseaworthy, and the witness agreed.

He also said that photos also demonstrated the vessel was unseaworthy.

The counsel put to him that the Acting Director of Marine Viliami Tu’ipulotu on July 2, 2009, after signing an extensive deficiency list for the Ashika on the same day, certified it was seaworthy.

“Do you agree that it is incomprehensible how a person, a director, could sign a deficiency list and on the same day certify it as seaworthy,” asked the counsel?

The witness agreed it was.

Independence needed

The witness also agreed with the counsel’s submission that the acting director had a great responsibility to protect the safety of passengers on ships and regulate the industry – and also needed to be independent, to stand up to pressure and authority.

The witness said he had read the transcripts of the hearing and he knew there were no lifejackets given to passengers on the Ashika. At the same time, he agreed that as part of good governance due diligence should have been conducted prior to the purchase of the vessel.

He also agreed with the counsel’s submission that due diligence should have consisted of an independent survey, evaluation of that process, an independent valuation of the vessel, and studying certificates.

The witness also accepted that the operator and owner of a vessel should look at documentation prior to purchase.

“And do you now agree that the Ashika was a disaster waiting to happen?” said the counsel.

The witness said he was aware of that now.

Counsel Varitimos put to him that if proper due diligence was conducted with documents obtained from the Fiji Islands Maritime Safety Administration office, the Ashika would not have left Fiji as it would require port clearance from Fiji for it to lawfully leave.

The witness agreed.

Captain Hogan: Witness at the Ashila inquiry. Photo: Matangi Tonga

Replacement
Captain Hogan said no one had contacted him or SPC in relation to the replacement vessel for the Olovaha.

He said that if the the SPC had been asked about surveyors, the secretariat would have provided a number of competent surveyors to survey the Ashika.

He was asked whether he had any correspondence with former Minister of Transport Paul Karalus on the replacement vessel.

He said there was a brief reference to a replacement ferry by Karalus in May last year during a regional maritime meeting hosted by Tonga.

The witness, however, confirmed that SPC was then contacted by Tonga Transport for help in the search for a charter (interim) vessel in October last year. He said two vessels based in Fiji were suggested, but he did not know about the result.

Audits
The SPC also conducted audits of the Tonga Maritime Polytechnic Institute last year.

The witness accepted that the audit showed there was a flaw in the system and administration at the institute explaining that the auditing regime was to monitor compliance with international regulations.

The audit identified that a number of systems needed to be corrected – lack of resources, a drain of maritime experts to overseas countries, and modules had not been updated for the past 10 years.

It was for that particular government to advise the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) – including  Tonga as a signatory – if it is complying with its regulations or not.

The IMO was based in London and is aimed at developing safety and regulations of ships, he said.

Source: Matangi Tonga