The Chief Justice of Papua New Guinea, Sir Gibbs Salika, has called on the National Capital District Governor Powes Parkop to enforce the Summary Offences Act.

Sir Gibbs made this strong plea at the opening of 2024 legal year yesterday.

“Lawlessness in the city is escalating immensely because the laws of the country are not being enforced. This should be a wake-up call for the NCD Governor Mr Parkop to fix this issue at hand,” said Sir Gibbs.

• READ MORE: Black Wednesday lawlessness in Port Moresby reports

“The rioting on January,10, 2024, was repeated by the same group of people a few days ago and many other issues arise in the city and throughout the country, which is becoming a threat to the rule of law.

“This shows our adherence to the rule of law, which is by far weak and not working well.

“Relevant authorities should enforce the National Capital District Commissions Act to control the chewing of betelnut and its spittle all over the city, which shows lawlessness; it is disgusting.

‘Law must be enforced’
“The NCDC Act must be enforced along with the Summary Offences Act to penalise the citizens who are violating the rule of law.”

The constabulary was also urged to uphold and adhere to the rule of law in making sure citizens were helped without fear or favour from the police force.

Sir Gibbs expounded on the duty of the judicial arm of the government and explained that the judiciary was there to interpret the laws in a timely and partial manner.

He encouraged the police force to also perform their duty to execute the laws that were passed down by the government in order for the society to function.

Republished with permission from the PNG Post-Courier.

Dissident Papua New Guinean politician and former cabinet minister Bryan Kramer has vowed to fight on in his campaign against corruption, saying the National Court ruling to dismiss him as an MP was “the calm before the storm”.

“The decision to dismiss me was expected and of course, it is certainly not the end of the issue as I have already been working on an appeal to challenge both the rulings on verdict and penalty in the National Court,” he told reporters in Port Moresby

Kramer, a former police minister then justice minister, was responding to the decision on recommendations for his dismissal and a fine of K10,000 (NZ$4600).

• READ MORE: Other Bryan Kramer reports

“Today’s decision in no way diminishes my resolve in the fight against corruption nor will it keep me from informing the public on issues of national importance or exposing high-level corruption,” he said.

“In my view it’s the calm before the storm.”

In a statement later in the day Kramer explained the court decision saying: “Today (1/5/23) the Leadership Tribunal handed down its ruling on the penalty in relation to the finding of guilt of the seven (7) counts of misconduct in office against me.

“The Tribunal categorised the seven counts of misconduct into two main categories in determining whether there is serious culpability (wrongdoing on my part) warranting my dismissal from office or recommending a lesser penalty of a fine or suspension of no more than three months without pay.

“Category 1 included counts 1 and 2 that related to my Facebook publications scandalising the judiciary.

Conflict of interest claim
“Count 1 being the publication insinuating a conflict of interest by the Chief Justice.

“Count 2 related to accusing [former prime minister] Peter O’Neill and his lawyer of soliciting the assistance of the Chief Justice and submitting a fabricated document to mislead the court that the warrant of arrest was defective.

“Category 2 included the remaining 5 counts that related to the decisions of the Madang District Development Authority Board in the application of the District Services Improvement Programme (DSIP) Funds in renting office space for the establishment of a project office to deliver district projects at the ward level, paying electoral staff who were involved in implementing the projects and establishing a ward project staff structure without obtaining approval from the Secretary of Personnel Management and engaging an associate company that was paid K3000 [NZ$1400] a fortnight.

“In short, the Tribunal recommended a penalty of dismissal from office in relation to counts 1 and 2 and a fine of K2000 for each of remaining 5 counts, a total fine of K10,000.

“Based on the Tribunal’s finding on guilt on seven counts handed down on 21 February 2023, today’s ruling for dismissal was expected.

“The decision recommending dismissal from office will be delivered to the Speaker who will then recommend to the Governor General (GG) to adopt the Tribunal’s recommendation to dismiss me from office.

“The decision of the GG will be gazetted and takes effect. At that point I will no longer be a Member of Parliament.”

Kramer Report publisher
Bryan Kramer, well known as a social media strategist and publisher of the anti-corruption Kramer Report, has been a cabinet minister in Prime Minister James Marape’s government since 2019, holding the police, justice and then immigration portfolios.

Leader of the Allegiance Party, Kramer was returned to Parliament at last year’s elections with sizable majority in the Madang Open seat.

Republished with permission.

The appointment of Baron Waqa, former President of Nauru, to head the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) next year was a jaw-droppingly poor decision and an insult to everything the regional body is meant to represent.

What were the Forum leaders thinking?

Here’s the thing, they were probably told he was the former President of Nauru, he’ll do, and we have to keep Micronesia happy. Tick.

• READ MORE: Pacific leaders commit to Forum reforms and ‘family unity’
• Other Barbara Dreaver reports at Asia Pacific Report

There is no doubt Micronesia has held the power at this forum after Kiribati dramatically ditched the group last year. It is crucial all Pacific countries, which include NZ and Australia, be united as the world goes through some crazy times.

Micronesia was offered a number of incentives to keep them at the table, including a new sub-regional office in Kiribati, a Pacific Oceans Commissioner based in Palau and Nauru’s Baron Waqa as Secretary-General.

Ongoing investigation
So what sort of man has been chosen to lead the Forum next year?

1. There has been an ongoing Australian Federal Police investigation into Gold Coast phosphate company Getax for the alleged payment of bribes to Nauruan politicians. That includes Baron Waqa, who allegedly received $60,000.
2. In 2014, President Baron Waqa and his government sacked the independent judiciary. He defended doing so, saying, “we have a right to dismiss any person not fulfilling their duties in the best interests of Nauru”. This prompted an international outcry, and the New Zealand government withdrew aid for the judicial system there in protest.
3. In 2015, his government blocked access to Facebook, which many, including a former Chief Justice, believed was an attempt to stifle dissent.
4. Media freedom is an issue — it costs $8750 to apply for media to apply for a visa, and if it is not approved (most of the time), you lose that amount.
   A disclosure: I was taken into custody in 2018 during the Pacific Islands Forum while interviewing a refugee in a public area. The government, led by Nauru President Baron Waqa, later said I wasn’t detained but accompanied them “voluntarily”. An outright lie — two police cars showed up, my equipment and phone were confiscated, and I was ordered into one of the cars. I was then placed in a dark room with a male police officer — a failed attempt at intimidation — for at least an hour before NZ MFAT officials arrived.
5. In 2015, an Australian PR firm, Mercer PR, which was working for the Nauru government, released details of a police report on an assault of a female Somali refugee.

Woman’s name, details released
The local police had found insufficient evidence, and in an extraordinary move, the government released the name of the complainant and graphic details about the allegations, including comments about her vagina and whether there was any evidence of semen and sexual activity.

The founder of the PR company, Lyall Mercer, defended the document release, saying it had done so on behalf of the Nauru government. A government led by Baron Waqa . . . and there was never any back down or apology over this.

How galling to see the sycophantic tweet from Lyall Mercer this week congratulating Waqa for his new PIF role, saying, “he is a person of great integrity & character, has travelled the world extensively & has a love & passion for the region & the Pacific way”.

So how do the women of the region feel about being represented by a man who had no problems with this extraordinary breach of privacy, the absolute contempt for the woman involved, which was clearly intended as a warning for any other female refugee coming forward?

Last year, as part of the PIF communique, the leaders commended the first PIF women leaders’ meeting a “milestone for the region and is demonstrative of its collective commitment to ensure that regional priorities are considerate of gender-balanced views and perspectives”. What a joke.

Pacific politics male-dominated
Politics in the Pacific is male-dominated, that’s a fact, and the Pacific Islands Forum could do a lot more to change that — this appointment is several steps back.

There were some highlights of the PIF special meeting. It was a relief to see Kiribati return to the Pacific Islands Forum. Fiji’s Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka has done more to bring the Pacific countries together than any other individual — as Forum chair, he showed immense integrity during the forum — and finally, from New Zealand’s perspective, I’m told Carmel Sepuloni did an exceptional job at the leader’s table.

But the selection of Baron Waqa shows how desperate Pacific Forum leaders, without doing due diligence, were to keep Micronesia happy.

This a shoddy outcome for what needs to be a strong regional group with good governance, reflective of the people who live in the region, not the people at the top.

Barbara Dreaver is Television New Zealand’s 1News Pacific correspondent. This article is republished with the author’s permission.

How Rabuka is reshaping Fiji’s politics. Video: TVNZ Q&A

The Chief Justice of Vanuatu has ordered the amendment of a constitutional application against the dissolution of Parliament to exclude the president of the republic from the case.

The application, which was heard in the Supreme Court today in Port Vila, was brought by 27 opposition MPs who were signatories to a motion of no confidence in Prime Minister Bob Loughman earlier this month.

On the motion being tabled in Parliament, the House was dissolved by President Nikenike Vurobaravu at the request of Loughman and his council of ministers.

• READ MORE: Other Vanuatu political crisis reports

Vanuatu lawyer Wilson Thompson is the assistant deputy Private Secretary to Vanuatu’s Head of State and was in court today for the proceedings. He said the court found the constitutional application too broad in its scope.

“The Chief Justice, who is the one presiding over the matter, has advised the applicant’s lawyers to amend the constitutional application and make it as an ordinary civil matter,” Thompson said.

He said the core difficulty in the original application was that it named the President as first respondent in the case but he could not be challenged because of the powers accorded to him by the Constitution.

“Because article 28 (3) of the Constitution does provide for the President to dissolve Parliament if he receives a council of ministers’ decision. And that provision does not provide for any other authority, whether from the opposition or whether from the leader of the opposition, for the President to consult before making a dissolution [of Parliament] ”

Thompson said the constitution also did not require the President to base his decision on any specific criteria.

Chief Justice Vincent Lunabek has given until the close of business tomorrow for the application to be amended to exclude the President and until Friday for the Attorney-General to prepare a response.

RNZ Pacific understands the new case is now being built around challenging Loughman and his council of ministers’ decision to request a dissolution of Parliament despite a date having been set by the Speaker of Parliament for the motion of no confidence to be heard.

The entire matter will be back in court on September 2 to see if there is a case to answer.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

A Leadership Tribunal has been appointed in Papua New Guinea to enquire into allegations of misconduct against the Member for Madang Bryan Kramer, a cabinet minister in the previous Marape government.

Kramer, a former police and justice minister and Minister of Immigration and Citizenship in the outgoing cabinet, has also been a social media strategist and publisher of the Kramer Report.

The Tribunal will be headed by a senior judge, Justice Lawrence Kangwia, and magistrates, Ms Nidue, Principal Magistrate and Senior Provincial Magistrate for Eastern Highlands, and District Court Magistrate Edward Komia.

• READ MORE: Other PNG elections reports

Acting Chief Justice Ambeng Kandakasi announced the composition of the Tribunal yesterday.

Kramer welcomed the opportunity for the misconduct allegations to be heard and determined by the Tribunal.

“Today I was contacted by the Secretariat of the Leadership Tribunal and served the instrument signed by Acting Chief Justice appointing a Leadership Tribunal to enquire into and determine the 14 allegations of misconduct in office filed against me by the Ombudsman Commission,” he said in a statement.

“I was also served a statement of allegations of misconduct in office prepared by the Public Prosecutor.

Without reasons
However, it was served without the statement of reasons by the Ombudsman Commission that was supposed to be attached, Kramer said.

“I’ve taken note of the allegations and find them ridiculous and nonsensical. I look forward to the opportunity to prove the same before the Tribunal.

“The 14 allegations fail to raise any actual elements of dishonesty, material misconduct or personal benefit and appear to be mere administrative issues and or absurd allegations.

“Three allegations relate to social media publications purportedly scandalising the judiciary — namely the conduct of Chief Justice Sir Gibbs Salika — in suggesting a conflict of interest.

“It is further alleged that I published a letter of criminal complaint which was authored by the Chief Justice and addressed to the Commissioner of Police. This letter of complaint alleged that my publication on an interlocutory ruling was ‘inciting trouble and tending to cause trouble or ill feeling among people’.

“The letter went on to request that police investigate the matter and lay appropriate charges against me under Section 11 of the Summary Offences Act.

“Other allegations against me relate to decisions made by the Madang District Development Authority to establish its own company, Madang District Works & Equipment Ltd and Madang Ward Project Limited, to implement the DDA’s own development programs, by funding the wards to construct their own classrooms, aid posts as well as repair of town roads that had failed to be maintained by successive Provincial Administrations.

‘Ethical and transparent’
“The DDA approved completing the work at cost that was not possible with private contractors, is ethical and transparent with no kickbacks paid to government or members and represents value for money for Madang Open constituents.

“It is further alleged that I misappropriated K30.6 million [NZ$14 million] of Madang DSIP funds to a company owned by a member of Madang DDA (Madang District Works & Equipment Ltd). This allegation is wholly ridiculous.

“The company is fully owned by Madang DDA, and a nominated representative of the Madang DDA is listed as the sole director on behalf of the DDA. This is common and correct practice, and complies with Section 7.2 of the DDA Act as well as advice provided by the former Chief Ombudsman back in 2018.

“As for K30.6 million — this is a ridiculous claim and entirely fictitious. K30.6 million was in fact an entire 2020 DDA budget appropriation, which was submitted to the Department of Treasury and approved. It was certainly not spent or paid to a District Works company.

“A simple review of the relevant acts and documents would have shown the Ombudsman and Public Prosecutor that there is no case to answer. I am surprised, and somewhat shocked, that they failed to do their homework before making these allegations.

“Surely it is their job to ascertain the facts supported by credible evidence before pursuing a vexatious allegations.

“Unsubstantiated and vexatious actions like this only serve to further undermine the public’s trust in these important Constitutional offices.

‘Breached constitutional obligations’
“In the Ombudsman Commission’s haste to have me prosecuted over these allegations, it breached its own constitutional obligations by failing to provide me the right to be heard insofar as providing me documents [that] I requested to ascertain the truth of their allegations.

“The Supreme Court, in the case Pruaitch vs Manek in 2019, ruled that ‘any relevant documents are to be furnished to the leader if requested to enable the leader to fully respond to the allegations’.

“On 14 December 2022, I wrote to the Chief Ombudsman requesting the commission provide an extension of time to respond to the allegations and provide the evidence they relied on in forming their opinion that I was guilty of fourteen allegations of misconduct. As reported previously, the Ombudsman refused my request stating that ‘in practice we do not generally release information because all our investigations are confidential’.

“This is clearly in breach of Section 59 of the Constitution, the right to natural justice, and is clearly contrary to the Supreme Court’s own ruling on the issue.

“I now plan to challenge the Ombudsman Commission and hold it accountable to the law it claims to uphold. I look forward to my opportunity to put these vexatious allegations to rest and the opportunity to subpoena and cross examine all relevant persons behind these allegations before the Tribunal.”

Todagia Kelola is a PNG Post-Courier reporter. Republished with permission.

The Vanuatu Prime Minister has again failed to push through controversial constitutional changes.

These include extending the term of Parliament, changing the definition of a Vanuatu citizen, and increasing the size of cabinet by nearly a third.

A second session of Parliament yesterday was adjourned because of a lack of MPs.

• LISTEN TO RNZ PACIFIC WAVES: Port Vila lawyer Gary Blake speaks to Don Wiseman on the constitutional crisis
• Prime Minister Bob Loughman failed to amend the constitution
• Other reports on the Vanuatu constitutional crisis

Prime Minister Bob Loughman wants to push through at least 15 constitutional changes which the opposition and some MPs in both his coalition and his own Vanua’aku Pati oppose.

On Friday there were only 31 of the 52 MPs present.

For a constitutional change a minimum of 34 MPs is needed.

On Thursday, lawyers in Port Vila published a statement strongly criticising one of the planned constitutional amendments.

They say the government’s plan to put the Chief Justice’s position on a fixed-term contract undermines the credibility of that judicial office.

Costly process
The adjournment of the Vanuatu Parliament over the seven days to Friday cost the country’s taxpayers more than 3.7 million vatu (US$32,000).

This is because MPs and cabinet ministers each get daily allowances when the Parliament is in session.

“You cannot just pull a paper from a rubbish bin and bring it to Parliament for approval because you are dealing with Vanuatu’s Constitution,” former prime minister Charlot Salwai said. https://t.co/Bgq4z1XeXs

— RNZ Pacific (@RNZPacific) June 16, 2022

But on Friday a week ago the session was adjourned because many MPs had boycotted over government plans to push through the sweeping constitutional changes.

Ati George Sokomanu, who was the country’s first president, is calling for more communication among the leaders and respect for the procedures required under the constitution to avoid wasting taxpayers’ money.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Vanuatu’s Speaker was forced to suspend a special parliamentary sitting today after the opposition and several government MPs did not turn up.

They were protesting against the government’s plans to push through major constitutional amendments.

Speaker Seoule Simeon adjourned the session due to a lack of quorum until next Friday.

• LISTEN: Opposition leader Ralph Regenvanu talks to Pacific Waves
• READ MORE: Other Vanuatu political crisis reports

Prime Minister Bob Loughman’s government needs the support of 34 MPs out of 52 to make changes to the country’s constitution.

But Loughman’s side was short by 3 MPs after the boycott by 7 MPs from the Reunion of Movement for Change party, led by former prime minister Charlot Salwai.

Opposition leader Ralph Regenvanu confirmed this morning the government had repealed “certain items” from the 16 proposed overnight after objections.

Two ‘disturbing proposals’
But Regenvanu said: “There are two very disturbing and dangerous proposals in these Parliamentary amendments which directly attack good governance in the country.”

The two changes include introducing a term of five years for the office of Chief Justice, and a change to the process for the appointment of the Ombudsman.

Regenvanu said previously the Ombudsman was appointed by the President after consultation with the prime minister, the speaker, leaders of political parties, presidents of the council of chiefs and provincial councils, chairman of the Public Service Commission and the Judicial Services Commission.

However, the amendment will only require the president to make the appointment after consulting the prime minister.

Regenvanu has confirmed the opposition will also not attend the Parliament session next Friday.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

How quickly things change.

If, as the old cliche goes, a week is a long time in politics then a month is an eternity.

As a story on the front page of the Weekend Observer revealed, the caretaker government is once again seeking to shape the outcome of judicial decision-making.

• READ MORE: Head of State defies court order, defers Parliament to August
• Samoa head of state’s power to convene parliament questionable – Academic

Caretaker Prime Minister Tuila’epa Dr Sa’ilele Malielegaoi and the Attorney-General, Savalenoa Mareva Betham-Savalenoa, have presented the Supreme Court with a motion requesting that certain judges not preside over a contempt of court motion filed against them.

The justices the pair are seeking to have removed via a recusal motion are the Chief Justice, Satiu Simativa Perese, Justice Vui Clarence Nelson and Justice Tafaoimalo Leilani Tuala-Warren (“Tuilaepa wants judges off contempt case”).

Saturday’s revelation is the latest in a long and complex string of attempts by the caretaker Prime Minister to influence the judicial branch of government in his favour. But is also reflective of a curious trend: that Tuila’epa’s hand-picked jurist has fallen out of the caretaker Prime Minister’s favour.

Efforts to influence and bombard the court have recently reached their peak as the nation undergoes a constitutional crisis over Parliament’s failure to convene after April’s national election.

But these attempts to make the court empathetic to the caretaker Prime Minister were in fact underway long ago. They date back to when Tuila’epa was searching for a Chief Justice to replace Patu Tiava’asu’e Falefatu Sapolu who resigned in April 2019.

That time feels like a different era: before the measles epidemic, the global covid-19 pandemic and our current constitutional crisis.

Tuila’epa took an unhurried approach to choosing a permanent replacement for Patu, the longest-serving Chief Justice in Samoan history, with nearly 27 years of judicial experience under his belt.

In fact, Tuilaepa openly admitted that he was taking a passive approach to selecting the appropriate candidate and waiting for divine inspiration to guide him to select the best candidate.

“I am still praying and once I acquire the whispers from God, then a decision will be made,” Tuilaepa said at the time.

“If it takes up to six months, that’s not a bad thing at all,”

In fact, it took much longer than that. Samoa was without a permanent Chief Justice for more than a year while the Prime Minister waited for that divine whisper.

He eventually settled on Justice Satiu who was sworn-in in June last year.

The Prime Minister did not disclose the contents of any whispers he may have received from on high to guide his choice.

But at his swearing-in ceremony, Tuila’epa defended the amount of time he took in selecting a replacement, again maintaining that Justice Satiu’s installment was guided from above.

“It takes time to seek God’s face and turn to the Bible for guidance. And these things take time and the whispers [from the Holy Spirit],” he said.

As it happens, Justice Satiu has been resolute in changing the direction of the court.

But it has not been in the way that the caretaker Prime Minister perhaps envisioned; he has proven to be more of a thorn in Tuila’epa’s side than a blessing.

Justice Satiu, born in Magiagi, is deeply rooted in Samoan tradition, but he has also been influenced by the principles of judicial independence taught at the universities he attended in New Zealand and America. This commitment has been shown in his rulings on a flurry of post-election legal petitions.

His Honour, has time and time again, shown his loyalty to the principle of judicial independence during a time of intense legal wrangling.

But in doing so, the Chief Justice has countered widely held expectations about how he would rule from the bench.

In an April statement, issued shortly after national elections which are the root cause of our current power crisis he issued a short statement outlining his simple judicial philosophy.

“We are in a state of uncertainty after the General Election, but I wish to reassure ourselves as a community, that the role of the Judiciary as the Independent Branch of Government is to do right by all manner of people, without fear or favour affection or ill will,” he said.

“As sworn members of the Judiciary, we uphold that Oath to the best of our abilities so to adhere to the Rule of Law.”

All jurists know to affirm their commitment to judicial independence; sticking to them in practice is a different question altogether.

It was widely assumed that because such a long time was taken to approve his selection, Justice Satiu would lean towards the constitutional interpretations of Tuila’epa and that of his Human Rights Protection Party (HRPP).

But much to the caretaker Prime Minister’s frustration, Justice Satiu has upset all expectations by remaining cool and composed throughout the current legal onslaught and applied the law completely straight.

Fiame Naomi Mata’afa, the leader of the Faatuatua i le Atua Samoa ua Tasi (FAST) party condemned his early release from quarantine in May as a political manoeuvre “so that he [could] sit in on the electoral petitions.”

That led to Tuila’epa to leap to his defence as a principled jurist, while he was attacking unnamed members in Samoa’s judiciary of being biased against him:

“It’s apparent from the criticism that the Chief Justice is an honest person,” he said on his programme on state-owned radio 2AP.

“[Fiame’s…] criticism is due to the fact [the Chief Justice] is independent.”

But now Tuila’epa is seeking to avoid having him preside over a trial in which he is involved. How quickly perceptions change.

Before the month of May was out and the FAST party held its own swearing-in ceremony on the lawns of a locked down Parliamentary precinct, the appraisal of the Chief Justice’s integrity has changed considerably.

The office of the government’s lawyer, the Attorney-General, maligned his integrity in a later retracted media statement claiming he had too often ruled in FAST’s favour and was even a “close relative” of Fiame’s.

He also drew criticism for walking to Parliament to try and open its doors on May 24 after being on a panel that determined Parliament had to sit on that day. (The doors had been locked on orders of the former Speaker Leaupepe Toleafoa Faafisi, who is himself facing a motion of contempt).

“The actions of the Chief Justice indicate that he may be in contempt of Parliament,” a statement from the Attorney-General’s office said.

But throughout this personal disparagement during our current constitutional crisis, Justice Satiu has maintained cool and composed and methodically applied the law and stayed true to his oath to protect and uphold Samoa’s constitution.

Perhaps His Honour Satiu Simativa Perese was indeed a gift from God — just not the kind that the caretaker Prime Minister was hoping to receive.