In response to Fabinyi et al.1, “Rethinking maritime security from the bottom up,” we raise a matter of scope and inclusivity. The article argues convincingly, and rightly so, for reimagining maritime security through the lenses of pluralism, agency, justice, and coordination. However, it omits engagement with a substantial body of African scholarship and policy practice that directly aligns with and enriches these principles. This illustrates the persistent epistemic marginalisation of Global South scholars by Global North academia, even when the former hold contextual and practical expertise, an issue central to decolonial critiques of knowledge production2,3,4. Even if unintended, such exclusions highlight the urgent need to acknowledge African scholarship in these discussions, to prevent the continued reproduction of knowledge hierarchies and to advance the creation of inclusive, contextually grounded teams in global research.

The African maritime space is dynamic, politically complex, and central to contemporary debates on maritime governance. From the 2050 Africa’s Integrated Maritime Strategy (AIMS)5 to sub-regional security arrangements in the Gulf of Guinea, the Horn of Africa and the Western Indian Ocean, African governments and institutions have developed normative and operational frameworks that mirror the authors’ call for ecological and human-centred approaches, such as the Yaoundé6 and Djibouti Codes of Conduct7, (see also the Jedda Amendment8).

Furthermore, the article is positioned as a global analysis of maritime security and the need for a human security nexus in understanding and addressing maritime issues. It claims: “…broad scholarly engagement, practical applications of maritime security still largely adhere to traditional definitions linked to international relations and security perspectives, focusing on safety, economic security, borders and the role of the state…” This framing overlooks a substantial body of African scholarship and practice that, over the years, has explicitly advocated for bottom-up and human security perspectives on maritime security, perspectives that are frequently absent from dominant global policy and practice but well-documented in the literature.

The proposal for a more inclusive framework with interlinked dimensions of human and eco-centric approach, incorporating the four stated principles as starting reference points, is not new. The four principles sideline African scholarship that has highlighted exactly these components of human security at the local and regional levels. African scholarship and practice have continued to play a key role in theorising and advancing these frameworks. For example, Okafor-Yarwood9 and Beseng10 highlight how IUU fishing and the resultant depletion of fisheries undermine human security in the Gulf of Guinea, using examples from West Africa and Central Africa. Meanwhile, Weldemichael11, and Sumaila & Bawumia12, addressed similar issues in the Gulf of Aden. In addition, Ukeje & Ela13, Kamal-Deen Ali14, Vracken15, Reva, Okafor-Yarwood & Walker16, Ojewale17, and Okafor-Yarwood & Onuoha18, document African-led maritime security cooperation, legal innovation, and the need for a holistic response to maritime security issues.

The article asserts that “… the practice of maritime security has failed to adequately embed critical consideration of human security.” This assertion may be true for the contextual case study presented in this article, which has a regional scope. Thus, it fails to consider ongoing engagements and actions at the transnational and multi-agency levels in other sub-regions. On the African continent, several case studies have highlighted the importance of including social and ecological factors alongside economic ones19, emphasising the evolving drivers of change at both local and transnational levels, thereby bringing human security into focus. African communities are already leading with examples of networks of locally and community-led fisheries and marine management20,21. These examples, along with others, provide a foundational discourse on local practice and governance aligned with a human-centred approach to maritime security. Their exclusion from the original perspective undermines the very principles it champions, particularly pluralism and justice.

In conclusion, we recognise that the discourse on maritime security has considerable potential to evolve with the integration of new empirical and theoretical insights that inform research and practice. However, such future agenda-setting studies should be expansive in their literature to capture not only original studies that have advocated for ideas it seeks to popularise but also the diversity of geographical scope. There is a need to address a systemic challenge for African scholarship and scholars: the tendency for scholars from the Global North to characterise ideas as “new” without acknowledging the existing body of work, as well as ongoing policy, regulatory, and multi-agency actions in the Global South, in particular, on the African continent. This oversight impedes collective efforts to establish a strong and transparent foundation for inclusive scholarship and practice, perpetuates the reproduction of knowledge coloniality and risks reinforcing blind spots in (un)learning and epistemic silos that privilege certain geographies over the Global South. To ensure a genuinely global and equitable discourse, we urge greater inclusion of African contexts and contributions in future scholarship.