Regularization of fishing licenses: Professor Fatou Diouf's justifications in response to MPs' criticisms of procedural flaws

Pressed with questions on Monday by members of parliament regarding the 2025 regularization of fishing vessels with irregular administrative records, former Fisheries Minister Fatou Diouf defended herself against accusations of turning a blind eye to procedural flaws. The academic revealed that she had ruled out the immediate suspension of the fleet to avoid the social upheaval of a widespread work stoppage at Pier 10 of the Port of Dakar. Advocating for support in achieving compliance under the supervision of the Advisory Commission for Licensing, she positioned her management as a complex balancing act between legal orthodoxy and job preservation.

Would suspending the fishing licenses of certain vessels have been the appropriate response to the irregularities found in their files? This is the crux of the former minister's parliamentary hearing. Questioned about the management of regularization processes during 2025, she explained the reasons that led her to reject the drastic measure of vessel impoundment in favor of technical support.

At the heart of the debates before the inquiry commission: how to handle administratively flawed cases without causing dramatic social disruption within the industry? The minister readily concedes that prior review by the Advisory Commission for the Allocation of Fishing Licenses (CCALP) remains a mandatory legal step. In her view, any renewal granted without this consultation is procedurally invalid. She asserts that, upon taking office, she ordered an audit of these contentious cases. However, the sanction of halting operations clashed with a compelling human reality: the preservation of thousands of jobs.

Pier 10: Between Regulatory Orthodoxy and Economic Survival

To support her decision, the former minister highlighted the plight of port workers, particularly those whose livelihoods depend on the activities of the trawlers docked at Pier 10 of the Autonomous Port of Dakar. "It's their livelihood, it's their means of production," the teacher-researcher emphasized to the commissioners.

According to her explanation, a sudden suspension would have immediately plunged the sailors, dockworkers, and fishmongers whose incomes depend on operating these vessels into precarious situations. Referring to the tense socio-economic context of coastal communities where fishing is the primary source of financial security, Professor Fatou Diouf stated that she wanted to prevent a rigid administrative restructuring from leading to a social crisis. Her approach thus consisted of requiring shipowners to regularize their technical documentation while keeping their vessels operational, refusing to grant carte blanche without any conditions attached.

Files reintroduced into the Advisory Commission's process

In this spirit of rectification, the former minister explains that she reclassified certain disputed renewals as new applications. Vessels whose registration documents had not followed the regulatory process were thus referred to the CCALP (Commission for the Control of Maritime Fisheries and Aquaculture) so that this interministerial body could rule on their compliance. Professor Fatou Diouf emphasizes that her ministerial signature was only given after obtaining a favorable opinion from the commission, stating that she would have accepted the rejection of the applications had the opinion been unfavorable.

This clarification comes as several parliamentarians questioned her about authorization notifications issued by the ministry even before the formal submission of files to the CCALP, particularly for armaments regularized during the 2025 financial year. While admitting the initial flaws in the administrative chain, the former minister maintained that her action was precisely aimed at extinguishing procedural defects while preserving the economic fabric.

This hearing sequence illustrates the ongoing dilemma of public governance: the painful trade-off between the strict application of legal texts and the management of social emergencies. While prior consultation with the relevant committees remains a legal imperative, immobilizing the fleet entails an immediate economic cost. The fundamental question posed by the rapporteurs of the inquiry committee remains: to what extent can the preservation of social peace justify the retroactive regularization of cases that violate the Fisheries Code?