African states call out false flags
Exposing maritime registration fraud
Two African nations have issued formal warnings to the International Maritime Organisation, alerting the global shipping community to fraudulent vessel registrations falsely claiming to fly their flags.
The governments of Zimbabwe and Madagascar have both filed separate official communications with the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) in London this month, warning that vessels are being falsely registered under their national flags using forged documents and fictitious authorities.
The two IMO Circular Letters, No 5131 from Zimbabwe, dated 10 February 2026, and No. 5125 from Madagascar, dated 9 February 2026, together paint a troubling picture of organised criminal networks exploiting the administrative complexity of international shipping registration to operate vessels outside the bounds of legitimate oversight.
The Embassy of the Republic of Zimbabwe in London moved swiftly to distance the Zimbabwean government from a purported body calling itself the “Registrar of Ships, Zimbabwe Maritime Authority.”
The embassy’s communication confirmed that no such organisation as a “Maritime Authority” exists anywhere within the Zimbabwean governmental structure. All maritime and shipping matters in Zimbabwe fall exclusively under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Transport and Infrastructural Development, the embassy stated.
The statement relates to a case of a crude oil tanker, Range Vale, that had anchored in a German port.
“There is no such organisation as a Maritime Authority in Zimbabwe. The IMO is urged to disregard any certificate issued in our name.”
Madagascar’s disclosure was broader in scope and revealed that the problem of false Malagasy registration had been proliferating since at least the end of 2025. The country’s Port, Maritime and Inland Waterways Agency (APMF), the Competent Maritime Authority of the Republic of Madagascar, reported that several foreign entities had submitted forged documents to organisations including Starshell Marine Inc, S&P Global, the Tokyo MOU, and the Turkish MRCC, all purportedly issued by Madagascar.
The APMF confirmed that no such register exists, and that all vessels named in the forged certificates do not appear in any official Malagasy register and are therefore not authorised to fly the Malagasy flag.
The APMF noted that the fraudulent certificates share several common characteristics, including spoofed telephone numbers and e-mail addresses, suggesting a level of organisation consistent with an established criminal enterprise rather than isolated, opportunistic fraud.
At least eight vessels have been identified as implicated in this scheme, including:
◼︎ NANCY (IMO 1073107)
◼︎ JABAL SHAMS (IMO 9082398)
◼︎ DIAMOND (IMO 9124976)
◼︎ BRIONT (IMO 9252955)
◼︎ AXON I (IMO 9005053)
◼︎ ALBA (IMO 9268112)
◼︎ OCEANJET (IMO 9546722)
◼︎ AMIE (IMO 9233234)
◼︎ M/V MARSER (IMO 9031519)
In response to these incidents, Madagascar has established a monitoring system for “registration fraud,” systematically responding to authentication requests by confirming the fraudulent nature of suspect documents. A complaint has also been lodged with Malagasy judicial authorities, and the matter has been referred to the competent ministries of Justice and Foreign Affairs with a view to strengthening both national and international cooperation.
Both governments have called on the IMO and Port State Control bodies to take concrete action. Madagascar’s APMF specifically requested that Port State Control Memoranda of Understanding treat any vessel claiming Malagasy registration under an “International Maritime Register” as presumptively fraudulent.
Zimbabwe’s communication, though more narrowly focused on a single vessel, was equally firm: all parties should disregard any documentation purporting to derive from the so-called Zimbabwe Maritime Authority, an entity that simply does not exist.
Vessels operating under fraudulent registrations pose significant risks: they circumvent the safety standards and inspections that legitimate flag state oversight is designed to enforce, operate outside Port State Control accountability frameworks, and may be used to conduct illicit activities including sanctions evasion, smuggling, or the transport of prohibited cargo.
PHOTO: Adobe Photostock Licence
39