The sinking of the MV Matui off Vanuatu last Friday is a gut-wrenching reminder of what happens when maritime safety is treated as a bureaucratic inconvenience rather than a sacred duty. One person is dead, and more than thirty are missing. The search for survivors has largely been called off, with efforts shifting to the grim task of recovering bodies. A nation of islands, where ferries are not a luxury but a lifeline, is in mourning.
That this occurred just days after the High Court in Suva ruled against Fiji’s Minister for Transport, Ro Filipe Tuisawau, is a coincidence that should not be ignored.
The High Court ruling and the safety questions
The ruling, delivered by Justice Anjala Wati, found that the Minister failed to act on a recommendation from the Maritime Safety Authority of Fiji (MSAF) regarding Goundar Fast Ferry’s MV Captain Inoke. The delay of over six months, the court said, contributed to the vessel’s registration being held up.
On the surface, this looks like a straightforward case of bureaucratic inertia. The vessel had undergone five safety and technical assessments and completed a four-hour sea trial. Thirty-eight of thirty-nine identified defects had been rectified. MSAF’s former CEO had reportedly concluded the vessel was “safe, technically fit and seaworthy”.
But the “39 technical faults” figure is not a detail to be glossed over. It is a flashing red warning light.
One fault—compass swinging and calibration—remained outstanding because, as the report itself noted, Fiji lacked qualified compass calibration experts. A ship’s compass is not a peripheral accessory. It is the most fundamental navigational instrument a vessel possesses. A ferry that cannot reliably determine its heading is a ferry that cannot guarantee it will not end up on a reef—or, as in Vanuatu, on the ocean floor.
The Minister’s caution was not obstruction. It was the minimum standard of diligence.
Goundar’s troubling safety record
This is not an isolated incident of overzealous regulation targeting a struggling operator. Goundar’s safety record, as documented by the International Transport Workers’ Federation (ITF), is deeply troubling.
In 2021, ITF inspectors revealed that Goundar had registered the MV Lomaiviti Princess III at 14 metres shorter and with a significantly lower gross tonnage than its previous registration in Canada. The implication was stark: by understating the vessel’s size, the company may have avoided critical maintenance and crew requirements mandated for a ship of its actual dimensions. The ITF’s inspector asked the obvious question: “Did the ship shrink? How does a ship lose 14 metres on the trip from Canada to Fiji?”
The allegations did not stop there. ITF inspectors reported that at least one radar device and depth-measuring echo sounders were non-operational on a Goundar vessel—equipment essential for avoiding grounding. Crew members alleged that fire and protective equipment was not functioning. Former MSAF CEO Joeli Cawaki’s own report, while recommending registration, acknowledged that only 38 of 39 defects had been rectified.
The Minister was being asked to sign off on a vessel that had failed its safety inspections repeatedly, that had a history of documentation irregularities, and whose operator had been accused of endangering passengers by falsifying safety records.
The Vanuatu mirror
Vanuatu’s tragedy is a mirror Fiji must look into.
The MV Matui sank in rough seas, and the Vanuatu government’s own statement acknowledged the loss “appears to be the result of strong winds and marine warnings not being heeded, and possibly of negligence including overloading of the vessel”.
The parallels are uncomfortable. Overcrowding has been a persistent complaint against Goundar’s services. Passengers have reportedly been forced to sleep on decks near toilet facilities. Hygiene and sanitation have been described as dire. These are not the hallmarks of a company that treats passenger safety as its paramount concern.
Vanuatu’s response has been telling. In the wake of the sinking, the Prime Minister’s Office took direct control of the Vanuatu Maritime Safety Authority, transferring it from the Ministry of Fisheries and Maritime Affairs to the Prime Minister’s portfolio, citing “questions being raised over the enforcement of maritime safety requirements”.
That is what accountability looks like. When an agency fails to keep people safe, the highest office in the land takes responsibility for fixing it.
The danger of judicial overreach
The High Court’s ruling, while legally sound in its finding of administrative delay, risks setting a dangerous precedent. By framing the Minister’s caution as an unreasonable obstruction, the court has, perhaps inadvertently, elevated commercial timelines above safety verification.
Justice Wati warned against delays “particularly where investors bring their investments into Fiji to serve citizens”. But what service is rendered to our citizens if the ferry they board is not seaworthy? What investment is protected if the first voyage ends in tragedy?
Goundar Shipping provides a necessary service to maritime communities. But necessity is not a licence to cut corners. The people of Kadavu, Lomaiviti, Lau, Vanua Levu and Taveuni deserve safe, reliable transport—not a monopoly operator that has repeatedly been accused of endangering lives.
The Minister’s decision to prioritise verification over speed was correct. The court’s ruling may force his hand. If it does, and if the MV Captain Inoke is registered and begins operating with unresolved safety issues, the responsibility for any future tragedy will rest not just with Goundar, but with every authority that allowed it to happen.
What must happen now
The MV Matui’s sinking should serve as an urgent call to action. Fiji’s maritime safety regime needs more than a judicial review; it needs a fundamental reassessment of how safety is verified, enforced, and prioritised.
First, the High Court’s decision should be appealed or urgently reviewed. A technical fault rate of 39 identified defects, even with 38 rectified, is not a green light. It is a yellow warning that demands independent verification before any passenger boards.
Second, the government must strengthen MSAF’s independence and capacity. The fact that Fiji lacked qualified compass calibration experts—a basic maritime competency—is an indictment of the regulatory infrastructure itself.
Third, there must be a clear, enforceable mechanism for passengers and crew to report safety concerns without fear of retaliation. The ITF’s findings were based on testimony from seafarers and passengers who had the courage to speak out. That courage must be met with action.
Finally, the Vanuatu government’s decision to place maritime safety under the Prime Minister’s direct oversight illustrates that Vanuatu is serious about this matter. When lives are at stake, the buck must stop at the top.
Conclusion
Minister Ro Filipe Tuisawau was right to stand firm. The court has ruled against him, but our seas have not yet passed judgment on the consequences of that ruling.
Vanuatu’s tragedy is a warning. Our maritime travellers deserve better than to be the next lesson the region learns the hard way. The time to act is before the next ferry sinks, not after.
Pasifika Talanoa by a traveled ITaukei Fijian 