Overview:
Indonesia is calling for the release of a seized fishing vessel and crew, arguing they were operating in disputed waters claimed by both nations. But while no diplomatic resolution has been announced, Palau’s courts have already ordered the sale of 40 tons of fish from the vessel — deepening tensions in a growing maritime dispute.
Palau proceeds with fish sale as Indonesia argues vessel was seized in overlapping maritime zone
By: L.N. Reklai
KOROR, Palau – (May 7, 2026) A diplomatic dispute between Palau and Indonesia over the seizure of an Indonesian fishing vessel has intensified, with no official diplomatic resolution announced even as Palau’s court system moves forward with the sale of approximately 40 tons of fish seized from the vessel.
The Indonesian government formally notified Palau on March 11, 2026, through a diplomatic note asserting that the fishing vessel KM Sinar Arindo 6 was operating within Indonesia’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) when it was intercepted by Palauan authorities.
According to the diplomatic note, Indonesian officials relied on Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) overlay tracking data from KM Sinar Arindo 6 and Automatic Identification System (AIS) data from the patrol vessel PRES REMELIIK II. Indonesia stated that the vessel was operating within an area reflected in Indonesia’s 2017 EEZ map at the time it was stopped by Palau authorities.
Indonesia also noted that the area remains subject to overlapping maritime claims and ongoing boundary negotiations between the two countries. Citing the “good faith of both countries to manage and settle any maritime border disputes,” Indonesia requested the release of the vessel and its crew.
As of Wednesday, Palau’s government had not publicly responded to Indonesia’s diplomatic note.
President Surangel Whipps Jr., who returned to office Tuesday following his father’s funeral, said he was unaware of the diplomatic communication. Attempts by this publication to obtain a response from Minister of State Gustav Aitaro were unsuccessful.
Meanwhile, the legal dispute surrounding the vessel continues in Palau’s courts.
The Palau government, represented by the Office of the Attorney General, filed an emergency motion in April seeking authorization to sell the seized fish. Attorneys representing the vessel opposed the request and asked the court for additional time, until May 5, to file a formal opposition.
Despite the objection, the court on May 1 authorized the sale of the fish aboard the Indonesian fishing vessel, citing 27 PNC 184(f), which states that seized fish “may be sold, subject to the approval and direction of the court.”
The court also cited concerns over inadequate refrigeration aboard the vessel and the continuing decline in the fish’s market value.
Over the weekend, Palau authorities began unloading the fish from the vessel. Sources aboard the ship alleged that officers arrived armed and directed the fishermen to transfer the fish from the vessel’s hold into trucks. The fish was later transported to freezers at Sure Save Mart.
The legal proceedings took another turn on May 6 when presiding Judge Rudimch recused herself from the case upon returning from off-island travel.
In her recusal order, the judge wrote that “it may appear to a reasonable observer that the undersigned is unable to decide the matter impartially,” while also stating that she disclaimed any bias for or against either party.
Defense attorneys continue to argue that the court lacks jurisdiction to order the sale of the fish while the underlying dispute over the vessel’s seizure remains unresolved.
The case now sits at the intersection of maritime law, diplomatic negotiations and domestic court proceedings.
While Indonesia maintains that the vessel and crew were apprehended in waters claimed by Indonesia and subject to unresolved maritime boundary negotiations, Palau’s government continues to pursue legal action through its courts, including the sale of the seized fish and continued detention of the vessel and crew.
For now, no diplomatic settlement between the two nations has been publicly announced, and the matter remains before the courts.
