Justicia Shipena
A legal battle over the limits of artistic freedom and corporate accountability is underway at the High Court of Justice in London, where Icelandic artist Odee Friðriksson is appealing a ruling in favour of the Icelandic fishing giant Samherji.
The hearing, which began on Wednesday and will end on Friday, deals with concerns about Friðriksson’s conceptual art piece We’re Sorry, which draws directly from the Fishrot Files corruption scandal that implicated Samherji in Namibia.
The court is conducting a rolled-up appeal, which means it will first consider whether to grant permission to appeal and, if so, proceed immediately with the full appeal.
This is after the ruling issued in November 2024 found We’re Sorry to be an act of passing off, malicious falsehood, and copyright infringement.
Samherji has since dropped its trademark infringement claim. The case is open to the public.
Friðriksson, known professionally as ODEE, maintains that his work is a satirical performance rooted in public interest.
“We’re Sorry” is a satirical protest in the public interest. This appeal challenges the court’s decision that imposes disproportionate restrictions on artistic and political expression.”
The artwork includes a fictional apology, a website, and a mural exhibited at the Reykjavík Art Museum.
It critiques Samherji’s alleged actions in securing Namibian fishing quotas through bribery, as revealed in the 2019 fishrot files.
Whistleblower Jóhannes Stefánsson leaked these files via WikiLeaks, leading to criminal charges in Namibia and the indictment of ten suspects.
Nine, including former ministers of fisheries and justice, remain jailed awaiting trial. In Iceland, Samherji faces ongoing criminal investigations, with a trial expected in 2026.
The case has drawn wide international support.
A coalition of over 25 organisations, including Transparency International EU, the Institute for Public Policy Research in Namibia, Free Press Unlimited, and The Whistleblower House in South Africa, has endorsed ODEE and Stefánsson.
These groups, which advocate for whistleblower protection, artistic freedom, and transparency, argue that both men deserve legal protection.
“Freedom of expression links public interest whistleblowers and artists—individuals who should be protected by law from the powerful who wish to stop them speaking up,” the coalition stated.
They emphasise that exposing wrongdoing and stimulating ethical public debate through satire, or conceptual art, is essential in democratic societies.
“Artistic freedom of expression, through film, theatre, painting or conceptual art, which uses satire and modern technology to critically shine a light on issues that matter… is essential for a healthy democracy.”
Friðriksson argues that this case will determine whether those who challenge powerful institutions on behalf of affected communities, such as those in Namibia, can be silenced through litigation.
“This case will determine whether those who expose corporate abuse, especially in defence of communities like those in Namibia who bear its costs, can be silenced through legal action by the very actors they critique.”
The outcome of the hearing is expected to influence global discussions on the boundaries of protest art, whistleblower protection, and the right to critique corporate conduct through creative expression.
