An appeals court has struck down a 2018 government order that sought to shut down Rappler, an online Philippine news site celebrated for its critical coverage of former President Rodrigo Duterte’s so-called “war on drugs” that left thousands dead.

The Court of Appeals (CA) Special 7th Division, in a ruling on July 23 but publicly released on Friday, ordered the country’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to “restore the Certificate of Incorporation of Rappler Inc. and Rappler Holdings Corp. in its records and system.”

The court stated that all issuances and actions relating to “[Rappler’s] illegal revocation” must be withdrawn.

• READ MORE: Ampatuan massacre justice aftermath with more fear of warlords, corruption — David Robie
• Other Rappler media freedom reports

Rappler and its chief executive, Nobel Peace prize laureate Maria Ressa, faced years-long legal battles after drawing condemnation from Duterte for the outlet’s critical reporting of the deadly drug war.

“This court decision, the latest in a string of court victories for Rappler, is a much-needed reminder that the mission of journalism can thrive even in the line of fire: to speak truth to power, to hold the line, to build a better world,” the online news portal said in a statement.

“It’s a vindication after a tortuous eight years of harassment. The CA was unequivocal in its rejection of the SEC’s 2018 shutdown order, declaring it ‘illegal’ and a ‘grave abuse of discretion’,” it said.

Rappler’s business certificate was revoked in January 2018 after the SEC claimed the news website was partly owned by foreign entities Omidyar Network, founded by eBay co-founder Pierre Omidyar and North Base Media, owned and founded by a group of journalists advocating free press.

Foreign ownership prohibited
The SEC took issue with Philippine depository receipts issued by Rappler to the two foreign groups. The Philippine Constitution prohibits foreign ownership of media sites.

Omidyar subsequently donated its shares to Rappler’s Filipino managers. The CA then asked the corporate regulator to restudy its ruling because the issue had been resolved. However, the SEC upheld its order before Duterte ended his term.

Rappler continued to operate while the website appealed the order.

Philippine media freedom – Rappler wins new court ruling.   Video: Al Jazeera

In its decision, the CA said Rappler is “currently wholly owned and managed by Filipinos, in compliance with the constitutional mandate.”

In 2021, Ressa won the Nobel Peace Prize for shining a light on thousands of extrajudicial killings under Duterte, who is being investigated by the International Criminal Court.

The Philippines ranks among the world’s most dangerous countries for journalists.

At least 199 media workers have been killed in the Philippines since the restoration of democracy in 1986, according to the Paris-based Reporters Without Borders (RSF).

That figure includes the 32 journalists and media workers murdered in one incident in 2009, the Ampatuan massacre in Mindanao described as the world’s biggest single-day attack on the working press.

Copyright ©2015-2024, BenarNews. Used with the permission of BenarNews.

The National Court has ordered the Papua New Guinea government to disclose the full details of the gold refinery deal it entered into with a Singapore-based company, National Gold Corporation.

The court ordered Prime Minister James Marape (first defendant), Planning Minister Renbo Paita (second defendant), the NEC (third defendant) and Dr Eric Kwa (fourth defendant) to make full disclosure on the project agreement, which would eventually become law and change the entire landscape of PNG’s gold industry.

“The process of gold refinery, while it may be welcome news for the country as to [who is] owning it, especially when a company is proposed to be a proponent, developer or owner of resource, the country needs to know the good and bad of it and the justifications for such arrangements,” Deputy Chief Justice Ambeng Kandakasi ruled in his judgment.

The order follows a court challenge mounted by Justin Parker, owner of Golden Valley Enterprise Limited, PNG’s leading gold buyer and processor, about the validity of the gold refinery agreement between the state and National Gold Corporation.

“I was disappointed when I learnt that an agreement was signed.

“To my knowledge the foreign company will own 70 percent of the refinery whilst the PNG government will only own 30 per cent when we could own for a 100 per cent nationally owned refinery,” Parker said through his lawyer, Saulep Lawyers.

The project agreement which will eventually be made law, will completely change the landscape of PNG’s gold industry.

Accessed unsigned copy
“Coupled with the media publications, I had the benefit of having accessed an unsigned copy of the agreement relating to the Refinery Project and I note with grave concerns how this purported agreement will be very detrimental to the state, as well as all industry stakeholders.

“This agreement will totally shut the doors completely on us local businesses, alluvial miners, gold miners and aggregators around the country.

“It is dangerous to note that there will be no more open market competition and trade, being the fundamentals of democratic society and therefore our Constitution,” Parker said.

Aggrieved with information gathered overtime, Parker filed an application in the National Court on 13 December 2021, seeking :

• A declaration pursuant to Section 51 of the Constitution that the Plaintiff has the right to have access to all pertinent and relevant information regarding the National Gold Refinery and Mint Project relating to the downstream processing of gold in the country, including, policies, statutory business papers, National Gold Corporation Project Shareholder Agreement, all related NEC Decisions (NEC Decision No 73 & 74/2021 dated 17th May 2021, NEC Decision No 267/2021 dated 20th September 2021 and NEC Policy Submission No 208/2021.
• An order that pursuant to Sections 51 and 155 (4) and of the Constitution, the Defendants make available forthwith to all the referenced documents to Parker.

Justice Kandakasi granted these orders and further ordered that: “As the plaintiff submits, there has been no broader, wider consultation and so who stands to benefit, who stands to lose, what are the arrangements and what are the safeguards for alluvial miners or other mining interest holders?

“There is no evidence of any meaningful consultation having being occurred so a disclosure of these documents will enable the plaintiff and such other persons to work out whether they should be challenging the decisions arrived at.”

The court orders:

• The plaintiff is granted leave to proceed ex-parte conditional on the plaintiff filing and serving an affidavit annexing the various email communication between the plaintiff and the defendants in respect of the matter coming to court today.
• Judgment is granted in favour of the plaintiff
• A declaration that pursuant to Section 51 of the Constitution, the plaintiff has the right to have access to all the pertinent and relevant information regarding the National Gold Refinery and Mint Project including the following information:

– (a) Department of National Planning and Monitoring’s Policy Document on the Refinery, Smelting and downstream processing of Gold in the country;
– (b) Statutory Business Papers regarding the National Gold Refinery and Mint Project;
– (c) National Gold Corporation Project Shareholders Agreement;
– (d) NEC Decisions No. 73 & 84/2021 dated 17th May 2021;
(e) NEC Decision No. 267/2021 dated 20th September 2021;
– (f) NEC Policy Submission No. 208/2021.
– Pursuant to Section 155(4) and Section 51 of the Constitution, the Defendants make available forthwith to the Plaintiff copies of all pertinent and relevant information regarding the National Gold Refinery and Mint Project, namely:
(a) Department of National Planning and Monitoring Policy Document on the Refinery, Smelting and downstream processing of Gold in the county;
(b) Statutory Business Papers regarding the National Gold Refinery and Mint Project;
(c) National Gold Corporation Project Shareholders Agreement,
(d) NEC Decisions No. 73 & 84/2021 dated 17th May 2021;
(e) NEC Decision No. 267/2021 dated 20* September 2021;
(f) NEC Policy Submission No. 208/2021.

The defendants shall pay the plaintiff’s costs of and incidental to these proceedings on a party/party basis, to be taxed if not agreed.

Gorethy Kenneth is a PNG Post-Courier journalist. Republished with permission.

Defrocked American priest Richard Daschbach, 82, has been sentenced to 12 years in prison for the crimes of sexual abuse of orphaned and vulnerable girls in his care.

He was sentenced on Tuesday for various sexual offences against girls at the Topu Honis orphanage which he controlled.

His minimum sentence was 12 years, taking into account several factors including the defendant’s age.

• READ MORE: Other reports on the Richard Daschbach trial

The judge ordered immediate preventive detention over concerns that he might escape. He was acquitted of child pornography charges.

Financial compensation to victims was ordered.

The case against Daschbach has marked the first time that allegations of sexual abuse perpetrated by a priest have gone to trial in the staunchly Catholic country.

Daschbach, who founded the Topu Honis shelter for orphans and vulnerable children in the early 1990s, was accused of 14 counts of sexual abuse of children younger than 14, as well as one charge of child pornography and domestic violence.

The trial began in February in this enclave of Oecusse, 200 km west of the capital, Dili, and near his Topu Honis shelter.

Closed to public
Court proceedings were closed to the public, and the trial was postponed several times before concluding last month.

Responding to Tuesday’s sentencing, Daschbach’s lawyer, Miguel Faria, said he did not accept it and would coordinate with the defendant and his family to prepare an appeal.

Lawyers representing the victims from the group Juridico Social applauded the verdict but said they would also appeal.

In a statement, the group said that considering the gravity of the crimes, Daschbach should have received a maximum sentence of 30 years.

“The history written today is a bitter history for the entire nation,” the group said. “Our children were subjected to horrendous crimes for such a long time because we, as a society, were blinded by the belief that a figure as the defendant in this case would not commit such crimes against children.”

The Vatican defrocked the Pittsburgh-born priest in November 2018, but Daschbach enjoys strong support from independence heroes, including former President Xanana Gusmao, who went to the court on Tuesday.

East Timor is generally the most staunchly Catholic place outside the Vatican and Daschbach is revered for his assistance during the Southeast Asian nation’s campaign for independence from Indonesia

Daschbach is also facing charges in the United States.

Antonio Sampaio is the Lusa news agency correspondent in Timor-Leste. Republished with permission.

A late legal bid to postpone Sunday’s independence referendum in New Caledonia has reportedly failed.

A leading anti-independence leader and president of New Caledonia’s Southern Province, Sonia Backes, said the highest French administrative court had rejected an urgent submission to defer the third and final independence referendum until next year.

The submission was filed by 146 voters and three organisations, arguing that campaigning has been hampered by the covid-19 pandemic.

• READ MORE: ‘Unthinkable’ referendum on New Caledonia independence challenged
• Emmanuel Macron’s dangerous shift on the New Caledonia referendum risks a return to violence
• Other Kanaky New Caledonia referendum reports

They said it was therefore “unthinkable” to proceed with such an important plebiscite.

In a post on social media, Backes said the vote would go ahead.

For weeks pro-independence parties have unsuccessfully lobbied Paris to delay the vote and they now say they will neither take part in the vote nor recognise its result.

France, which deems the pandemic to be under control, last week flew in almost 250 magistrates and judicial officials to oversee Sunday’s vote.

It also flew in about 2000 extra police, including riot squads, to provide security for the referendum.

A pro-independence delegation from New Caledonia has left for New York to raise its opposition to the referendum with the United Nations.

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

Vanuatu Supreme Court judge Justice Oliver Saksak has granted a stay on the vacation of 19 seats in the country’s Parliament.

On Tuesday, the Speaker of Parliament, Gracia Shadrack, declared the seats of Prime Minister Bob Loughman and 18 of his MPs vacant because they had been absent from Parliament on three consecutive occasions in breach of standing rules.

The MPs were absent on the third occasion to avoid a vote of no confidence motion, but they had also been striving through the past week to remove Shadrack, after he appeared to side with the opposition.

• READ MORE: Vanuatu speaker declares vacant seats of PM, his deputy and 16 MPs

Shadrack encouraged the MPs to seek a court ruling on his actions and now Justice Saksak has issued a stay on the actions of the Speaker, with a court hearing to be heard from 10am tomorrow.

Meanwhile, the Speaker has adjourned Parliament until Friday when debate on his actions, and the motions that are in play, can begin.

RNZ Pacific’s correspondent in Vanuatu said the shutout of the government MPs was all people were talking about in the kava bars.

He said everyone in Vanuatu knew that under normal practice, it was the opposition that would boycott parliamentary sessions.

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

Papua New Guinea’s Waigani National Court has ordered Police Commissioner David Manning to vacate the office by noon Friday because he lacks the tertiary qualification required for the post.

Justice David Cannings upheld a judicial review application filed by former senior police officers Sylvester Kalaut and Fred Yakasa who had applied with Manning for the position in 2019.

Manning will also have to vacate the position of Secretary to the Police Department by noon Friday after the court found that his appointment was unlawful because of “the absence of a tertiary qualification”.

• READ MORE: PNG’s Police Commissioner David Manning could be out of a job – ABC’s Pacific Beat
• PNG government to comply with court ruling
• Police Minister Bryan Kramer’s response

Justice Cannings said: “It was an error of law and ultra vires on the part of the Public Services Commission to, without highlighting the issue surrounding the absence of tertiary qualifications, include David Manning in its preferred list of candidates, knowing that the successful candidate would be appointed to two positions and it being clear that Manning was not qualified for one of those positions (secretary for the Department of Police).”

Justice Cannings said they were two separate positions.

“The fact that the position of commissioner is the dominant position created by the Constitution does not mean that the qualifications for appointment to that position (which do not include possession of tertiary qualifications) override or subsume the qualifications for appointment as Secretary for the Department of Police.

“Rather it is the case that the qualifications for appointment as Secretary for the Department of Police are in addition to the qualifications for appointment as Commissioner of Police.”

Justice Cannings quashed both appointments published in the National Gazette on Dec 10, 2019. The order will take effect on Jan 29 at noon to allow the respondent parties time to take steps to avoid uncertainty in superintendence, efficient organisation and control of the police force.

The court found that Manning had no tertiary qualification (degree) from a recognised university while Kalaut held a Bachelor of Laws degree (with honours) from the University of Papua New Guinea (UPNG) and Yakasa a Bachelor of Arts degree, also from UPNG.

The three were among the 18 candidates who had applied for the position.

Manning was appointed on 10 December 2019 for a period of four years.

He said outside court that he was going to seek legal advice on the court ruling.

He urged police officers to continue with their duties while he sorted out the matter.

Prime Minister Marape seeks legal advice
The National’s Miriam Zarriga reports that Prime Minister James Marape said Cabinet would seek legal advice on the court ruling.

“(It was a collective decision) when we appointed Manning in the first place,” he said.

“I have not received a full advice from our lawyers on the decision which was cabinet’s collective decision when we appointed Manning.

“Due process was complied with for his appointment.

“But if the court feels otherwise, then we will study the decision before I respond.”

Asia Pacific Report republishes The National articles with permission.

ANALYSIS: By Alexander Gillespie, of the University of Waikato

Was Brenton Tarrant’s silence and acceptance of sentence in court a final act to expand his notoriety? Was his disavowal of previously expressed ideological views a trick?

A person capable of planning the Christchurch mosque attacks so methodically may well have mapped the last public chapter, too. By saying little and expressing no real remorse, alone and without even his own lawyer, was he hoping the world would see a determined stoicism, an enigma?

Or did he simply realise the controls around court behaviour were so well designed that he couldn’t hijack proceedings?

• READ MORE: Remembering my friend, and why there is no right way to mourn the Christchurch attacks
• Christchurch mosque attacks: ‘Inhuman’ terrorist jailed for life without parole

For now at least, we can’t know. All we can say for sure is what the High Court in New Zealand has heard over the days leading to today’s sentence of life in prison with no minimum parole: using overwhelming firepower against defenceless civilians he took the lives of 51 men, women and children, injured many more and left even more bereft.

His silence notwithstanding, then, he is not an enigma.

As the first person in New Zealand to be convicted of terrorism, he comes from the same dark place that spawned the likes of Anders Breivik in Norway, Darren Osborne (who drove a truck into Muslim worshippers in London in 2017) and Dylann Roof (who attacked black parishioners in a South Carolina church in 2015).

Tarrant had even carved the names of Alexandre Bissonette (who attacked a mosque in Quebec in 2017) and Luca Traini (who attacked African migrants in Italy in 2018) on the magazines of his guns.

So now he joins that list of mass murderers, animated by a hatred of tolerance, equality and multicultural values, who came to believe indiscriminate violence against unarmed civilians was justified.

The first ever non-parole sentence
If this was America, he could have been sentenced to death or given a cumulative jail sentence of over 1,000 years. Neither option is available in New Zealand. There are many good reasons for having no death penalty, including in this case the denial of any aspirations to martyrdom.

• READ MORE: Jailing the Christchurch terrorist will cost New Zealand millions. A prisoner swap with Australia would solve more than one problem
  

The most extreme penalty New Zealand law does allow is jail for life without any minimum parole period. Although a sentence of 30 years without parole has been imposed, life without parole has never been given.

It is fair to say that Judge Mander, who did an excellent job throughout, met public expectation with his decision to ensure Tarrant never again walks outside a guarded wall.

What the law demands
Such a sentence is justified if the court is satisfied no minimum term of imprisonment would be enough to satisfy the main considerations: accountability, denouncement, deterrence or protecting the community.

In short, the Sentencing Act sets out the purposes of sentencing: to hold the offender to account for the harm done to the victims and the wider community, to denounce the crime and deter others from replicating those acts.

Supplementary principles a sentencing judge must consider include the gravity of the offending and its seriousness compared to other types of offences. The judge is required “to impose the maximum penalty prescribed for the offence if the offending is within the most serious of cases for which that penalty is prescribed” (unless there are mitigating circumstances).

The only mitigation that would have carried weight in this case was Tarrant pleading guilty and therefore shortening proceedings. Other mitigating factors, such as remorse or offers to make amends, were not to be seen or were deemed not genuine.

Placing the victims first
The other principle Judge Mander had to take into account relates to the effect of the offending on the victims. As the 91 victim impact statements heard over three days made clear, those victims displayed remarkable fortitude, bravery, wisdom and humanity.

But the black hole of pain the killer left in his wake is near incomprehensible.

Further aggravating factors justifying this sentence were that these were pre-meditated crimes of hate, terrorism, particular cruelty and involved the use of weapons.

Tarrant ticked all of the boxes. The enormity of his crimes made them unlike anything that had gone before. New Zealand has experienced mass shootings in the past, and murders based on racial hatred, but nothing of this scale.

On top of that, no one had employed the internet to spread hatred as happened in Christchurch, nor has anyone pleaded guilty to an act of terrorism before.

When all of these considerations were put on the scales of justice, Judge Mander would have seen that, small acts of mitigation aside, an unprecedented sentence was the only appropriate outcome for an unprecedented crime.

Dr Alexander Gillespie is professor of law at the University of Waikato. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

The Supreme Court in Vanuatu has sentenced Philip Jimmy, a man found guilty of murdering his girlfriend Alice Karis last year, to 26 years in prison.

Jimmy, who was convicted last month of the premeditated murder of the late Karis on June 16, 2017, was sentenced yesterday.

In his judgment, Supreme Court Judge David Chetwynd emphasised on the seriousness of the offence.

It is believed to be the harshest sentence ever handed out by a court in Vanuatu for a spouse-killer. Domestic violence has become a growing issue in Vanuatu in recent years.

Judge David Chetwynd said taking another person’s life was the most serious offence in criminal law and a sentence should reflect that.

“There is a need to adequately punish the defendant for what he has done,” said the Supreme Court Judge.

“There is also the need to deter other men from using violence against women and to reinforce the need to respect the equal and human rights of women, particularly in the context of a domestic relationship.”

Maximum penalty life
Intentional premeditated homicide carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.

The accused received a starting sentence of 28 years taking into account the aggravating factors.

There are a number of aggravating factors apparent in the offending. This was undoubtedly domestic violence against a partner who was not smaller but also affected by alcohol, said the judge.

“Ms Karis was vulnerable and to all intents and purposes defenseless,” he said.

“The defendant’s reasoning seems to have been she [and her children] were a drain on his finances and she has disagreed with him. He was a man who was used to imposing his will through violence.

“There was a history of violence in the relationship and on occasion the violence was directed at others.”

The judge considered the mitigating factors, accepting that the accused had no previous convictions and taking into account his remorse, and that left Jimmy with a sentence of 26 years.

Vicious attack
Medical evidence revealed that Karis had died following a vicious, prolonged and deliberate attack on her body on June 16, 2017.

“Those injuries could only have been caused by the brutal attack carried out by the defendant,” Judge Chetwynd said in his judgement.

Jimmy had initially pleaded not guilty to the offence.

From February 26 to March 9, 20 prosecution witnesses took the witness stand and testified against Jimmy, following events that led up to the last moments of Alice’s life and he was convicted.

The penalty for premeditated homicide is laid out in section 106 (1) and subsection (b)of the Penal Code Act [CAP 135], as follows:

“Intentional homicide (1) ‘No person shall by any unlawful act or omission intentionally cause the death of another person. (b) if the homicide is premeditated, imprisonment for life.”

• Boyfriend found guilty
• More Vanuatu stories

Reporters Without Borders (RSF) has condemned many media freedom violations during the general elections held in Papua New Guinea from 24 June to 8 July, including a gag order on a popular blogger as a result of a complaint by the head of the PNG Electoral Commission.

Journalists who went to cover the elections in the northern province of Madang were kept at bay by the police and the Electoral Commission, said the Paris-based RSF.

In the capital, Port Moresby, the media were barred from filming or taking photos in the city’s main vote-counting centre.

Amid many reports on social networks of allegations of vote-buying and violence, the authorities also took alarming measures against citizen-journalists, most notably blogger Martyn Namorong after he referred to Electoral Commissioner Patilias Gamato as a “tomato” in one of his many posts criticising the chaotic elections.

As reported by Asia Pacific Report and Pacific Media Watch, Gamato brought a suit claiming that he had been “seriously injured in his character, credit and reputation” in Namorong’s post, which went viral.

Defending his decision to sue, Gamato said: “I don’t look like a tomato, I’m a human being. So that’s defamatory, so I had to take him to court.”

The National Court, located in the Port Moresby administrative district of Waigani, responded by issuing a gag order, banning Namorong from publishing further “defamatory remarks” on Facebook and Twitter.

‘Duty to inform’
“Journalists and citizen-journalists have a duty to inform the public about what has gone wrong during an election.” RSF said.

“The courts and the authorities must recognise that Martyn Namorong committed no crime and must therefore lift the censorship order imposed on him.”

An international NGO that defends the freedom to inform, RSF added: “A country cannot claim to be democratic just because it holds elections. It must also respect and protect media freedom, which is the cornerstone of every democracy.”

Namorong’s lawyer, Christine Copland, said her client had no chance to speak when the gag order was imposed because court officials said they “could not locate him” to serve the documents, as reported by Asia Pacific Report.

Namorong’s response to the order was to post a photo of himself blindfolded and gagged. After another hearing was scheduled for today, he tweeted: “I am as cool as a cucumber about [the] hearing as my lawyers are no couch potatoes.”

Papua New Guinea is ranked 51st out of 180 countries in RSF’s 2017 World Press Freedom Index.

• Blogger Martyn Namorong gagged

By Quintina Naime in Port Moresby

The indefinite suspension of classes at the University of Papua New Guinea has been lifted and students will return to class to continue semester one.

The decision was announced yesterday by the university council following 10 days of suspension.

Semester one will resume on June 13, which is a public holiday. This is so classes will kick off on Tuesday, June 14, while the medical students will commence classes on June 6.

UPNG’s acting chancellor Dr Nicholas Mann said the suspension had given the council ample time to reorganise the academic calendar and also for the students to “think things through”.

The 2016 academic calendar has now been extended by another three weeks past schedule.

The restructured calendar will see semester one continue from June 13 to July 22. This will head straight into semester two from July 25 to November 5.

Dr Mann appealed to parents to encourage their children to return to classes.

He urged students to avoid situations that would lead to another suspension as they would do more damage to their academic year if they continued to boycott.

The students had been protesting for about a month over the country’s governance, calling on Prime Minister Peter O’Neill to stand down and face investigations into corruption allegations.

Quintina Naime is a Loop PNG reporter.

• Court grants UPNG students go-ahead to seek judicial review over eviction

Baki appealed on ground that the National Court judge had overlooked administrative procedures in handling disciplinary issues before going ahead to grant a judicial review.

The appeal also requested Baki to review his decision but Judge Kariko said the police commissioner makes the final decision and that decision cannot be reviewed unless the decision came from a officer with a lower rank.

However this has now cleared the way for Eluh, suspended as assistant police commissioner, and Gitua, terminated as deputy director of the National Fraud and Anti-Corruption Directorate, for pressing ahead with the judicial review.

Background

By Raymond Ginio in Port Moresby

Papua New Guinea’s former opposition leader, who launched a successful legal challenge against the Manus Island asylum seeker detention centre, has called for the ousting of Prime Minister Peter O’Neill.

Speaking on NBC News last night, Belden Namah said: “Papua New Guineans must now take action. Take back your country – save your country.”

He said if the people did not do it now, they would never do it.

The member for Vanimo/Green MP called on both the Papua New Guinean and Australian governments to immediately shut down the Manus Island Regional Processing Centre for asylum seekers.

He gave a 3 month ultimatum before taking other action.

Namah said it had now been more than two weeks since the Supreme Court ruling that the centre was unconstitutional and illegal, and he had seen “no sign” of moves toward closing it.

He said the centre did not serve the interests of the people of Papua New Guinea.

Australian responsibility
Namah said that when the Somare government a signed memorandum of understanding with Australia it was to establish a refugee processing centre only on Manus Island.

“No refugee was supposed to be resettled in Papua New Guinea,” he said.

“Resettlement of refugees was supposed to be the responsibility of the Australian government.”

Namah said he had given both governments 3 months to close the facility.

“Failing that, I will pursue other possibilities.”

Namah also supported the students at the University of PNG in their protest against the government.

He appealed to all Papua New Guineans to support the students while they asked Prime Minister O’Neill to stand down and face the rule of law over corruption allegations.

“The whole country needs to rally behind the students,” he said, adding: “The whole country needs to rally behind the police Task Force on Corruption.”

Raymond Ginio is a reporter with NBC Television News.

• PM O’Neill’s plea to students: ‘Think before you act’

A copy of the PNG Supreme Court judgment has confirming the ruling.

A five-man bench of the court ruled the detention breached the right to personal liberty under the PNG Constitution.

“The undisputed facts clearly reveal that asylum seekers had no intention of entering and remaining in PNG. Their destination was and continues to be Australia. They did not enter PNG and do not remain in PNG of their own accord,” the judgment said.

As part of the judgment, the Supreme Court has ordered the PNG and Australian governments to immediately take steps to end the detention of asylum seekers in PNG.

It is understood that there are 850 men currently in the detention centre on Manus Island.

Not for Profit aid agency Save the Children chief executive Paul Ronalds said the decision by the Supreme Court in Papua New Guinea provided an opportunity for Australia to rethink its refugee policy.

‘Always unsustainable’
“The offshore processing centre on Manus Island was always unsustainable,” Ronalds said.

“The offshore detention facility on Manus Island has undermined our relationship with Papua New Guinea. We’ve lost any leverage to push for improvements in the way our significant aid investment is spent, or to push for improvements to governance and the rule of law.

“Now is the opportunity to engage in genuine discussions with our regional neighbours, particularly Indonesia and Malaysia as well as Papua New Guinea, and to develop a truly region solution to the global refugee crisis.

“The price of the offshore detention on Manus is lost influence with the PNG Government, lost influence globally and now complicity in a scheme that the Supreme Court has ruled is illegal.”

Human rights lawyer Julian Burnside said he had had the PNG court decision confirmed by a number of sources.

He said his initial response was that it was “absolutely right” and he would be making further comment later.

Australian policy unchanged
A statement released by Immigration Minister Peter Dutton said Australia was not a party to the legal proceedings in the Supreme Court of Papua New Guinea.

“It does not alter Australia’s border protection policies – they remain unchanged. No one who attempts to travel to Australia illegally by boat will settle in Australia,” Dutton said.

“The government will not allow a return to the chaos of the years of the Rudd-Gillard Labor governments when regional processing was initiated to deal with the overwhelming illegal arrivals of more than 50,000 people.

“The agreement with Papua New Guinea to establish the Manus Island RPC was negotiated by the Labor government.

“Those in the Manus Island Regional Processing Centre found to be refugees are able to resettle in Papua New Guinea.Those found not to be refugees should return to their country of origin.”

• The full judgment

Scores of asylum-seeker families, including babies born in Australia, face the prospect of deportation to Nauru after a High Court ruling, reports AAP/SBS News.

The full bench of the court today rejected a legal challenge to the federal government’s offshore immigration detention regime.

It did so after considering the case of a pregnant Bangladeshi asylum seeker who was brought to Australia from Nauru for treatment for serious health complications.

She faced the prospect of being returned to the Pacific island with her one-year-old child.

In a majority decision the court said the woman’s detention on Nauru was not unlawful.

It also ruled the Commonwealth’s role in her detention was authorised under Australian migration laws, and the government’s offshore processing deal with Nauru was valid under the constitution.

Majority ruling
“The High Court held, by majority, that the plaintiff was not entitled to the declaration sought. The conduct of the Commonwealth in signing the second MOU with Nauru was authorised by s 61 of the Constitution,” the judgment said.

“The Court further held that the conduct of the Commonwealth in giving effect to the second MOU (including by entry into the Administrative Arrangements and the Transfield Contract) was authorised by s 198AHA of the Act, which is a valid law of the Commonwealth.”

The ruling has implications for 267 other people – including 91 children – who are in Australia for medical treatment.

Of the 54 children, 36 are attending Australian schools.

The federal government is now under pressure to show compassion towards the group.

Human rights lawyer Claire Hammerton from the advocacy group for child refugees said the concern was now for 90 children set to be returned to Nauru.

“ChilOut is extremely worried about these children and their families, and in particular the 37 babies who were born in Australia, who will be deliberately sent to a place the Australian government knows is unsafe for children,” she said.

Child protection role
Save the Children, which has had a child protection role on Nauru, called on Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull to show some compassion towards the 37 babies and older children.

“If found to be genuine refugees, we urge him to do the decent thing and offer these vulnerable people permanent protection here in Australia,” spokesman Lee Gordon said in a statement.

Australian Greens senator Sarah Hanson Young said the prime minister would be authorising child abuse if the families were sent back to Nauru.

“The evidence is clear and its undeniable that Nauru is unsafe for women and children and sending them back would be torture,” she said.

Amnesty International said it was concerned that asylum seekers would be subjected to human rights violation – referring to reports of sexual harassment and abuse – if returned to Nauru.

“Amnesty International, as well as numerous other organisations and individuals, has submitted several formal requests to visit Nauru with the intention of independently reviewing the conditions and assessing the overall human rights situation, but to no avail,” Amnesty International Australia’s Refugee Coordinator, Dr Graham Thom said.

Ahead of the ruling, Immigration Minister Peter Dutton insisted the government was acting in the best interests of asylum seekers brought to Australia for health care.

Mindful of message
But the government had to be mindful of the message being sent to people smugglers.

Australia also has a detention centre on Manus Island in Papua New Guinea.

Although Dutton wanted to reduce the number of children in detention to zero, people smugglers were channelling a message to potential customers that “Dutton’s a soft touch and you can put women and children on boats and be successful”.

The federal government, with Labor’s support, had retrospectively changed laws to bolster the Commonwealth’s ability to pay for the offshore facilities last year.

Its case in part hinged on a sudden decision last October by the Nauru government to allow asylum seekers to roam around the island nation at will.

Backgrounder: Australia stands firm on hardline policies