Lifting ban exposes risk

THE decision to uplift the precautionary ban on fish consumption in Madang is deemed premature and exposes consumers to great risks.
The judgment was generally based on human rights and rule of law.
However, no due consideration was given to the fact that Madang Administration’s placing of the ban was substantiated by scientific evidence established through internationally respected professionals, well before the spill last August.
The differing views to uplift or continue the fish ban pending scientific facts require both legal as well as logical reasoning.
In such contradicting situations, decisions ought to be made for the greater good.
There is no logic for the court to apply the rule of law to place human life in danger.
How could the court allow people to sell or eat fish while it does not have proof that the sea is free from poison?
It also disputes the moral maxim, “man is not made for law but law is made for man.”
Man is not to be slave to a law that is deemed to bring destruction.
Law ought to serve man.
On the practical level, people of Basamuk, Kurumbukari, Ramu River and other coastal and island villages of Madang are affected by unknown illnesses and negative environmental impact on their natural ecology.
Their rich cultural connections to the sea and their natural surroundings are jeopardised.
We cannot overlook the factual evidences encountered by the people.
It is possible to lay such claim against MCC because a total of 270,000 litres of toxic waste is allegedly dumped everyday into the sea since the operation of the DSTP waste disposal system.
Not only humans are affected.
Sharks, dolphins, turtles and other rare marine animals are also found dead on remote places such as Long Island and other coastal areas of Saidor and Sumkar.
The lack of fortitude to await scientific report to be publicised before uplifting the ban evidently classifies fish consumption more than human life.
The acting provincial administrator Joseph Kunda and his administration deserve credit in upholding their primary responsibility to protect people from harm.
While, people are now selling and eating fish as usual, they also have the right to know who would be responsible for sicknesses or deaths related to fish consumption.
Respective authorities need to clarify this imminent threat.

Luwi James,
Indigenous Advocate