![](https://sbm.sb/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Screenshot-2025-01-08-at-10.37.50-AM.png")
Honiara, Solomon Islands – December 11, 2025 – The estate of the late Dr. Baddley Anita, represented by his daughter Christine Anita, has filed an application in the High Court for a formal assessment of damages exceeding SBD$121 million following a landmark judgment that declared a 2016 government raid on their dolphin breeding facility unlawful. The move comes after failed settlement negotiations with the Solomon Islands Government (SIG), highlighting ongoing tensions over marine wildlife trade and government accountability.
The application, filed on December 3, 2025, by lawyers Rano & Company, requests court directions to prepare for a trial-like assessment under Rules 9.48 and 9.49 of the Civil Procedure Rules. It details heads of damages including constitutional violations, pecuniary losses from lost dolphin exports and business expenses, consequential business losses, and exemplary damages. The total claimed stands at SBD$86,873,591.03 in damages plus SBD$34,749,436.41 in interest at 5% over eight years, amounting to SBD$121,623,027.44.
The case stems from a controversial raid on October 29, 2016, at the Solomon Islands Marine Breeding Centre (SMBC) on Bungana Island in Central Province. Officials from the Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources, the Ministry of Environment, Climate Change, Disaster Management & Meteorology, and the Royal Solomon Islands Police Force entered the premises, dismantled dolphin holding facilities, and released captive Indo-Pacific bottlenose dolphins into the sea. The action was based on the Fisheries (Prohibition of Export of Dolphins) Regulation 2013, which was later declared null and void by the High Court in 2018 in the criminal case R v Anita [2018] SBHC 79.
In a sworn statement supporting the application, Christine Anita described the raid as “clandestine” and noted that her father’s operations were conducted under a valid CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species) permit and aligned with government policy, including a 2014 Cabinet decision to lift the dolphin export ban.
On September 2, 2025, High Court Justice Augustine Aulanga ruled in Civil Case No. 526 of 2016 that the defendants’ actions were “unlawful, arbitrary, oppressive, and in breach of the principles of natural justice.” The judgment rejected the government’s “good faith” defense, noting the regulation’s invalidity and the failure to provide prior notice or consultation despite the facility’s long-standing operations. The court held the defendants jointly and severally liable for damages initially quantified at SBD$31,819,591.03, subject to formal assessment, along with 5% annual interest from December 1, 2016, and full costs on an indemnity basis due to the “frivolous nature of their defence.”
Post-judgment, settlement efforts included a September 22, 2025, letter demanding SBD$61,112,786.49 (including damages, interest, and legal costs) and a concessions-laden offer on November 21, 2025. Meetings with ministry officials, Crown Counsels, and the Government Caucus yielded no resolution, prompting the push for assessment. “No concrete resolution can be reached,” Anita stated in her affidavit, emphasizing the need for court intervention to “settle the quantum.”
The case has drawn international attention, with animal rights groups like the International Marine Mammal Project (IMMP) opposing dolphin captures in Solomon Islands waters, citing welfare concerns and calling for a ban on wild captures. In November 2025, IMMP urged the SIG to reject permits for capturing 50 dolphins, arguing it violates conservation principles. In response to IMMP’s position, Wilson Rano of Rano & Company, representing the Anita family, issued a statement challenging the group to support their advocacy with tangible action: “If they are really concerned about the welfare of the dolphins, they should fund further research into Solomon Islands to enable proper data and allow Solomon Islanders to properly exploit their natural resources sustainably with informed decisions taken from updated data. Do not just talk. Put your money where your mouth is. Or in the alternative, provide funding for SIG to redeem itself of the debt validly found and assessed by the High Court of Solomon Islands – the highest court of the land.”
Conversely, the Anita family maintains the SMBC was a legitimate marine conservation and export business, contributing to research and local employment, and that the raid caused irreversible financial and operational harm.
The application proposes a structured preparation timeline: the claimant to file a statement of case within 14 days, defendants to respond within another 14, followed by replies, trial book preparation, and setting a trial date. Any cross-examination notices must be served seven days prior. Costs are sought in the cause.
A mention hearing is scheduled for February 23, 2026, at 9:30 AM in Court Room 3 of the High Court House in Honiara, before Justice Aulanga. Failure to attend could result in orders made in absentia.
This development underscores broader issues of government overreach, wildlife trade regulations, and judicial oversight in Solomon Islands. Legal experts view the judgment as a significant precedent for holding state agencies accountable for unlawful actions. The Attorney General’s Chambers, representing the defendants, has not yet responded to requests for comment.
End//
>>>issued by the Anita family via their lawyer Rano today
