Papua New Guinea’s Justice Minister Bryan Kramer has confirmed that he has ordered his department — Justice and the Attorney-General (DJAG) — to investigate a complaint against the National Judicial Staff Service (NJSS) hiring highly paid overseas consultants.

Their wages are paid in Australian dollars and deposited in overseas accounts.

Kramer made this statement on the floor of Parliament when answering a series of questions from shadow attorney-general and Rabaul MP Dr Allan Marat during question time.

• READ MORE: Other reports on PNG consultants

Dr Marat had asked what the status of the investigations are?

Were there breaches of the relevant laws, and why they are paid in Australian dollars and their salaries paid in overseas accounts?

Kramer said this initial complaint came via a written complaint as chairman of Judicial Legal Commission concerning contracts that were recently awarded within the judiciary to overseas consultants.

The complaint, he said, had a report attached that raised specific issues of amount of money being paid, to foreign contractors and payments being made overseas.

investigations are ongoing
The investigations are not complete and are ongoing.

Once complete a decision would be made about course of action would be taken, Kramer said.

“On the issues of public service it is important to note that these contracts were paid for private consultancy services so won’t fall [under] the regulation of public service,” he said.

Kramer explained that there was a query raised with the State Solicitor to seek clearance concerning whether or not these contracts were complied with legally and lawfully under the procurement processes.

“And the advice I understand provided by the State Solicitor is that, they exceeded the threshold within the jurisdiction of the judicial services to execute these contracts and provided an advice [on] whether to re-negotiate the contracts down to the threshold or to call for public tender on those contracts.”

He added that the concern was over the manner in which the contracts had been approved and the amounts involved in the contracts.

“There are specialised skills or experts around the globe that the state may engage from time to time — be it in oil and gas, and in any new legislative areas like in carbon credits,” Kramer said.

Significant fee
“These experts will attract a significant fee but justification will be on a short term contract where they may apply to come on a three to six month to provide that expert opinion and advice.

“These contracts were extended over a period of, I think 8 to 9 years,” he said.

“That’s another contentious issue that we are looking at.”

• What was the justification;
• What were the terms of reference for engagement of these contracts;
• What were the specific outcomes of these contracts;
• Why were they continually renewed — is it necessary to renew?;
• Why were they not advertised for Papua New Guinean experts or other experts, like under the European Union (EU); or
• Why did we not engage these consultants under the existing EU [arrangements] where they pay for the contracts and we don’t have to meet the costs.”

Kramer concluded that once the investigations were completed and if it was confirmed that there was non-compliance with legislative procedures, then a decision would be made by DJAG to terminate these contracts.

Republished with permission from the PNG Post-Courier.

I write this as a Papua New Guinean and a daughter of this nation.

I believe in the rights of women. I believe that the Constitution of the Independent State of Papua New Guinea, the Mama Lo, safeguards the place of women in our nation.

Madang, today, is arguably Papua New Guinea’s province with the highest recorded crime rate in the country.

Madang has been making headlines for all the wrong reasons.

Crime has increased significantly in the last eight years and most of those involved in the criminal activities are still walking around freely.

People are demanding that police and the elected members of Parliament solve the rise of criminal activities in the province.

But it is also time that everyone, including communities and government departments, take ownership of the problem too.

In June last year, I went with Madang police into the Transgogol area to report on the killing of an elderly man where several houses were also burnt.

Police explained that the fighting had started in 2015 following the sexual assault on a young girl.

Sporadic fighting
Sporadic fighting had been ongoing in the area with brutal results.

Police had not been able to arrest suspects involved in the killing and the ongoing clash since 2015.

This, they said was because the local people were not cooperating with police in handing over suspects or providing information to assist police arrest perpetrators.

This has also been happening in the other parts of the province.

People are not handing over criminal elements or providing vital information to police to assist them with their job.

Last month, the Acting Provincial Police Commander, Senior Inspector Jacob Bando, announced there had been an increase in the number of murders.

At least one murder or robbery reported every month. Daily reports from stakeholders indicate the figure is higher.

In Bogia district, a man was killed after he was suspected of practising sorcery.

Robbing major supermarkets
Criminals are robbing major supermarkets within the town vicinity and escaping on boats.

These criminal activities are taking a toll on the public who are angry about the situation.

While the public are waiting for their elected members and police to solve those problems they also forget they can also help.

Yes, police have the duty to maintain law and order. But we, the public, also have the duty to our children, our province to report those who commit crimes.

Those very people who we protect and shelter in our communities will one day turn on us. They will rob us or even worse – kill us.

Because we take pity on them when we should have hand them over to police when we have the chance to do so.

While I try not be being biased as a female journalist working in Madang, I can state from a position of authority, that police cannot do everything without the cooperation and support from us the citizens.

Senior police officers I have interviewed admit they face serious problems like manpower shortages and housing problems. They work in rundown police stations, use old police vehicles and the list goes on.

Those problems exist and the noncooperation from citizens in helping them put criminals behind bars makes their job more challenging.

If you want to help Madang regain its one time a time tag “as beautiful Madang”, the change should start with us before we look any further or point fingers.

Martha Louis is the Madang staff journalist of EMTV News. This article was originally published on Scott Waide’s blog My Land, My Country.

• More PNG stories

Secretary of Foreign Affairs Alan Peter Cayetano claims the Philippines’ withdrawal from the International Criminal Court is “a principled stand” as nongovernmental organisations and politicians supposedly use human rights for political ends.

“The political NGOs and the politicians have taken over human rights,” Cayetano has told GMA News anchor Jessica Soho.

“Now it’s being used in politics. But this is a principled stand,” he added in a mix of English and Filipino.

President Rodrigo Duterte announced earlier on Wednesday that the Philippines would withdraw from the ICC “effective immediately.”

READ MORE: Duterte’s statement on Int’l Criminal Court withdrawal

In his interview with GMA News, Cayetano explained that withdrawing from the ICC was “not a way of evading” an ICC probe into Duterte’s anti-drug campaign.

Cayetano said that even if the Philippines withdraws from the ICC, the court still had jurisdiction over the things the Philippines did when it was a member.

Additionally, he pointed out that withdrawing from the ICC “has been in informal discussions ever since,” even when he was still a senator during Duterte’s term.

‘Internal conflict’
The Philippines’ top diplomat recalled that during the time of then president Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, the military did not want the Philippines to ratify the Rome Statute of the ICC.

This was because the Philippines has an “internal conflict” that might “compromise” police and soldiers.

The Philippines ratified the Rome Statute during the time of then president Benigno Aquino III. One of those who pushed for this ratification was human rights lawyer Harry Roque, now Duterte’s spokesman.

“Now the President sees that there is internal conflict, like what happened in Marawi, et cetera. And that’s the same reason that the US, China, Russia did not sign or did not ratify it. The US signed but did not ratify it,” Cayetano said.

Read an excerpt from Cayetano’s interview below:

“The political NGOs and the politicians have taken over human rights eh. So ang problema hindi na katulad dati na prinsipyo talaga sa human rights. Sa ngayon ginagamit sa politika. But this is a principled stand. Ayaw nating maging hipokrito, na ang malalaking bansa hindi sumali dito.

“But to prove that it’s not a way of evading or getting away from the consequences or the jurisdiction ng ICC or nangyari na, even if mag-withdraw tayo, covered pa rin ‘yung actions natin when we were a member.

“So sa mga nagsasabi, ayaw lang ni Presidente maging liable dito, he’s not doing it for himself, kasi we still have obligations during that time. It’s really for the soldiers, the police, and to make a stand sa ating mundo na you know, huwag ‘nyong ipolitika ang human rights.”

Duterte made this declaration more than a month after the ICC opened its “preliminary examination” of the alleged extrajudicial killings in his war on drugs.

The President vowed the ICC cannot have jurisdiction over him, “not in a million years.”

• More Philippines stories

It’s becoming far too common: Journalists and whistle blowers are being singled out and silenced as governments throughout the region allow the Pacific to slide down the slippery slope of repression.

Either we act now to stop it, or we accept that in ten years, the region’s media may look a lot more like the People’s Daily than The Sydney Morning Herald.

READ MORE: The Vanuatu Daily Post editorial

Australia is no exception. Even now, the Coalition government is considering draconian new laws that would outlaw activity that is necessary to the proper functioning of a democracy.

In every country of the world, social media is eroding people’s sense of the truth, and undermining its importance in their daily existence.

In the Pacific Islands, the threat is real. Last week, three veteran journalists in Fiji, all of them with spotless reputations, were detained by police on suspicion of “inciting unrest”.

They had published the news that a magistrate who ruled against the government’s interest in a labour case had been sacked. They were held for hours, and their phones and laptops were seized.

As this editorial is being finalised, Samisoni Pareti, Netani Rika and Nanise Volau are facing the possibility of charges of incitement to sedition.

Inexcusable police action
This action by police, presumably with the blessing of the FijiFirst government, is inexcusable. There is no possible justification for it. It is a direct assault on free speech and the freedom of the media to question the actions of public officials.

The clearly opportunistic prosecution of the publisher and editor of The Fiji Times is a similar travesty. The government is seeking a punishment that is wildly out of proportion with the crime these people are accused of.

Clearly, the government wants The Fiji Times shut down because it tells the truth.

We have to ask: Are the days of dictatorship in Fiji truly past?

In Kiribati too, as details emerged about the tragic—and possibly preventable—sinking of a passenger ferry, we heard that a New Zealand television news crew had their gear confiscated. This is just not on.

Yes, the news media are often the bearers of bad tidings. Yes, sometimes they are the ones who dig these stories up. Yes, sometimes they make mistakes.

None of this justifies punishing people for speaking their mind.

Constant threats
The danger is greater than it has been in a decade.

Media freedom pioneer Marc Neil-Jones suffered assaults, imprisonment, deportation and constant threats as he fought to build and preserve media freedom in Vanuatu. He did not do it alone. Every time he suffered another affront, an uproar spread across the region, making it clear to the government of Vanuatu that there would be consequences for their ill-advised actions.

Now, government and civil society leaders gather in Nauru, and not a peep is heard about their government’s serial abuses of freedom of speech and human rights.

Fiji subverts the entire media establishment, and nothing is said. Kiribati outright says “stop reporting on this story”, and aside from a few angry squawks, nothing happens.

The very governments who claim to defend democracy and Western values don’t seem as married to them as they once were.

We need to realise something: Either we speak up now and draw a clear line under freedom of speech, or we write it off in the Pacific region.

The right to express oneself is not granted by governments. Constitutions don’t give these rights either. They recognise them.

How high a price?
These rights existed before we were born, and they will continue to exist whether we admit it or not. The only question, really, is how high a price do we have to pay to exercise them? Detention? Imprisonment? Deportation? Assault?

This is not an abstract discussion. The truth matters more than ever, and media professionals across the Pacific need to understand that time is not on our side.

Across the globe, people are beginning to see the damage caused by Facebook’s pernicious influence on people’s perception of what’s true. It’s felt in small communities more intensely than anywhere else. A few unprincipled and unrestrained people are playing fast and loose with the truth, and ruining people’s lives in the process.

If our professional media associations were doing their job, they would set an example for others to follow. Instead, they cower, just as they’ve done in the face of government repression.

And now, the worst excesses of social media are being used as justification for even more suppression from these same governments.

In Vanuatu, Basil Leodoro, a highly respected doctor, was suspended from his job by the Public Service Commission for months because he spoke his mind. Both his manager and the Director-General of Health confirmed to the Daily Post that the reason for his suspension was his open letter to the Prime Minister questioning millions of dollars of spending during the Ambae island evacuation effort.

Only after it became clear that the pressure was not going to let up did the PSC grudgingly reinstate him. And even as they did, they salted the wound with unsubstantiated accusations that he had stolen money, and that letters supporting him were obtained by coercion.

A press release issued by a Public Service Commission official accused Vanuatu media of “biased and excessive” reporting on the suspension.

Clearly the government of Vanuatu needs to learn—again—that free speech is fundamental to democracy. There is nothing more important than the right to speak, free of coercion. We stand with Dr Leodoro, and with everyone who speaks their mind honestly and fairly.

Speak up for the truth
If we don’t reaffirm this now, if we don’t repeat this chorus loud and long, we will lose our democracy.

In New Zealand and Australia, in Fiji, in Kiribati, in Nauru—across the entire region—media professionals need to stand up and speak in defence of the truth. We need to set an example for others, show them how responsible, principled, fair and fearless reporting comes about.

Across the Pacific, our national media associations have to find the courage to speak again. The Pacific Islands News Association (PINA), absent all these years, needs to stop being a hollow excuse for biannual junkets, and do its job.

PINA used to be at the forefront of press freedom in the region. Now as a result of a dominating broadcast sector they have lost the plot when it comes to issuing statements critical of government attacks on press freedom.

Nobody is going to do this for us. If we don’t act, our governments will. And that won’t end well for any of us.

Dan McGarry, Media Director
Marc Neil-Jones, Publisher
Vanuatu Daily Post
Port Vila, Vanuatu

• Fiji police again question Islands Business chief editor, ex-publisher in probe

• Sign the petition to defend journalism, whistleblowers and democracy.

Philippine Solicitor-General Jose Calida says nothing – not the Supreme Court (SC) and not even the Constitution – can stop President Rodrigo Duterte and Congress from further extending martial law.

“The Court cannot, in the absence of any express or implied prohibition in the 1987 Constitution, prevent the Congress from granting further extensions of the proclamation or suspension,” Calida said in his 99-page memorandum sent to the Supreme Court yesterday.

Calida said further extensions were possible “for as long as the Congress believes that the invasion or rebellion continues to exist, and the public safety requires it”.

READ MORE: Justice pushes for ‘broader criteria’ for declaring martial law

This is what the House minority bloc warned against.

In their petition seeking to nullify the re-extension of martial law in the southern island of Mindanao to the end of 2018, the lawmakers said the Philippines was heading towards a “martial law in perpetuity.”

Presidential Spokesperson Harry Roque said there was no need to fear this because the Constitution did not allow a perpetual martial law.

Calida does not share the same opinion.

“The period for which the Congress can extend the proclamation of martial law and suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is a matter that the august body can itself define, unshackled by any predetermined length of time, contrary to the petitioners’ erroneous submission,” the Solicitor-General said.

If Calida’s line of argument is to be upheld, Edre Olalia of the National Union of People’s Lawyers (NUPL) said: “Congress can extend martial law until kingdom come and the SC cannot do anything but to genuflect and grovel. Preposterous!”

Supreme Court’s power of judicial review
Calida also insists in his memorandum that extending martial law is not within the Court’s power of judicial review.

“The determination of the length of the extension is a power vested only in the Congress. It involves the exercise of its wisdom. The issue is a political question that judicial review cannot delve into,” Calida said.

But oddly enough, when it came to addressing the fear of a perpetual martial law, Calida changed tone and said one of the constitutional safeguards against abuse of the executive was that the Supreme Court can always step in.

“The extension is subject to judicial scrutiny upon the exercise of any citizen of his or her right to question the sufficiency of its factual basis, as exemplified by the very action now before this Honourable Court,” Calida said.

The paragraph above contradicts Calida’s many statements within the same memorandum that insists SC does not enjoy that power.

For example, one of Calida’s main arguments is that “the extension may not be impugned on the ground of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction”.

In fact, that argument is contained in his very first pleading to the SC, saying that proclamation is different from extension. SC had already ruled that it has the power to review martial law proclamations.

Political question
Petitioners said that one of the grounds to nullify the extension was that the Congress leadership approved it in undue haste.

In response, Calida said that the Congress’ approval is a perfect example of a political question. The doctrine of political question is invoked when the executive and the legislative resist being reviewed by the judiciary.

“The Congress has full discretionary authority to decide how to go about the debates and the voting. In other words, the issues that the petitioners raise are political and non-justiciable. The questions presented essentially go into the wisdom of the Congressional action,” Calida said.

Calida dedicated 3 pages of his memorandum to stressing that the judiciary cannot interfere in the business of the executive and legislative branches, if the business is a political question.

“This despite the fact that political question limitation has already been debunked and abandoned by Article VIII, Section 1 of the Constitution,” Olalia said.

Olalia was referring to the constitutional power given to the judiciary to review whether the two other branches of government exercised grave abuse of discretion.

A sub-committee at the House of Representatives is proposing to delete that provision once and for all, something that retired Supreme Court justice Vicente Mendoza warned against.

“It needs serious study because deletion of this phrase mght be used to render SC powerless,” Mendoza said.

• Pacific Media Centre reports: President Duterte placed Mindanao and its nearby islands under martial law on 23 May 2017 in response to the Battle of Marawi against Islamic State (ISIL), including Maute and Abu Sayyaf Salafi jihadist groupsNon-Muslim indigenous Lumad people of Mindanao have opposed martial rule and many human rights violations have been recorded by independent human rights organisations.Duterte has threatened to extend martial law across the whole country. The Philippine Congress on 17 December 2017 endorsed Duterte’s request to extend martial law until the end of 2018.
  

Lian Buan is a journalist writing for Rappler.

• Other Philippine reports

With its official launch in the country set for today, Amnesty International Indonesia has emphasised the need for the government to step up focus on human rights issues and warned that neglecting human right violations can impede the country’s growth.

Speaking at a press conference in Menteng, Central Jakarta, the chairman of the board for Amnesty International Indonesia, Todung Mulya Lubis, said that despite progress in democracy, political life and the economy, Indonesia still needed to pay more attention to human rights issues.

“There’s still plenty that must be done to resolve past human rights violations […] Indonesia won’t have smooth progress if those remain unresolved, it will always obstruct the way,” Todung said.

The London-based organisation hopes to push Indonesia to be a global player in upholding human rights with its local chapter.

“Amnesty International Indonesia wants to urge Indonesia to take a global role in the human rights movement. That’s one of our dreams,” said Monica Tanuhandaru, one of the board members.

She emphasised that economic development in Asia, Southeast Asia and Indonesia would be “meaningless without justice of human rights.”

However, as the world bears witness to changing political dynamics across the globe, it is no longer solely the role of the government to ensure protection of human rights. Rather, it should be the product of a collective act from all members of society.

“[The] state is becoming weaker and weaker. Efforts to uphold and protect human rights must be done by civil society, but this doesn’t mean that we deny the existence of the state,” Todung said.

Uniting all movements
Amnesty International Indonesia hopes to “unite all human rights movements that are present in Indonesia,” especially as it aims to urge the government to resolve human rights violations.

For decades, the Indonesian government has provided little clarity on how it will address past human rights violations, including violations allegedly committed in 1965 and 1998, as well as those resulting from conflicts in Papua, West Papua and Timor-Leste.

Promises that these violations will be duly addressed was popular among candidates during the country’s last presidential campaigns, but real commitments to human rights from the current administration seem to have been overridden by priorities on other aspects, such as the economy and infrastructure development.

Sidarto Danusubroto, a member of the Presidential Advisory Board (Wantimpres), said that telling the truth in Indonesia was “not a simple process” and would likely require a long time.

While the government has programmes for human rights, it was facing “economic issues” that must be resolved, he said.

“I’m afraid that if the government also has to resolve past human rights violations, current programmes for the economy will weaken,” Sidarto said.

Countries like South Africa and Chile, Sidarto said, had “built their memories of human rights” through museums.

‘Dark past’
He reflected on the importance of these countries being able “to admit their dark past without the need to hide,” and expressed his hopes that Indonesia would eventually get there.

“I hope, one day, we’ll get there – where we don’t have to be ashamed to speak of our dark past,” Sidarto said.

Amnesty International Indonesia will launch its #JoinForces initiative on December 7, coinciding with the 517th Kamisan – a silent protest in front of the State Palace in Central Jakarta – as a form of solidarity to the protesters who have been demanding that the Indonesian government solve past cases of human rights abuses.

This had been initiated by friends and family members of 1998 student activist victims every Thursday afternoon for the past 10 years.

The organisation will also host simultaneous events across Indonesia between today and December 10, including in Bandung (West Java), Solo (Central Java) and Makassar (South Sulawesi).

The initiative is focused on combating growing “scapegoat” politics and the rise of negative populism that the organisation said had “undermined the basic rights of minority groups.”

The people of the Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste will today celebrate the 42nd anniversary of their Declaration of Independence.

For the last 26 of those years, the US-based East Timor and Indonesia Action Network (ETAN) has supported their struggle for self-determination.

We stand in solidarity with all the people of Timor-Leste, and do not favour any political party or leader.

READ MORE IN TETUN: Timor-Leste selebra aniversáriu proklamasaun independénsia da-42; ETAN rekoñese no enkoraja ninia demokrasia ho dame

The Timorese people are currently facing a challenging time, as an opposition coalition in Parliament challenges the current government’s right to govern.

We encourage everyone to put the national interest above personal and partisan interests and to adhere to the Constitution, law, and democratic principles.

ETAN is confident in the strength of Timor-Leste’s democratic institutions and in its people’s commitment to stability, democracy and justice.

While politicians and commentators in Dili debate legal interpretations and jockey for power, the other 99 percent of the Timorese people are trying to live from day to day.

Public services
They depend on public services like education, health care and safety. Many still lack decent livelihoods and adequate food.

We encourage those in government, Parliament and political parties to design, improve, and carry out programmes to strengthen and diversify Timor-Leste’s economy, minimise poverty, decrease unemployment and malnutrition, reduce inequalities, and eliminate corruption.

Addressing these challenges will be the key to long-term stability for the country.

We also encourage every official, public servant and citizen to attend to people’s lives and families, without being distracted or paralysed by rumours, partisan maneuvering or anxiety about politics.

The President of the Republic will play a key role in resolving this political impasse, which we hope is over soon. We appreciate the calm way he is carrying out his duties under the Constitution, and we hope that he will continue to promote dialogue among political leaders, elected officials, civil society, ordinary citizens, and others to find the best solution for the entire nation.

We were encouraged by the President’s recent meeting with rural women leaders, and hope to see more women included fully in political discussions, including at the highest levels of political leadership.

Many people in Timor-Leste have traumatic memories of the brutal Indonesian occupation, as well as of the intra-Timorese conflicts of 2002 and 2006. However, people have learned from that history, as demonstrated by the largely peaceful last decade.

Moderation, restraint
We appreciate the moderation, restraint, and adherence to law currently exercised by nearly all citizens and by Timor-Leste’s police and military, and we expect that this will continue.

Although political rhetoric has sometimes been confrontational, it has not escalated to physical violence. We hope that the leaders and people of Timor-Leste continue to show their commitment to peaceful, democratic processes in a sovereign nation.

During the last 500 years, the small nation of Timor-Leste has often been oppressed, manipulated or exploited by international actors. We urge foreign powers to allow the Timorese people to work out their own problems without outside interference, even as we show our solidarity by encouraging Timor-Leste to follow a peaceful, fair and democratic path.

Yesterday, most people in the United States were celebrating Thanksgiving, a day to be grateful for the good people and things in our lives. We also recall the shameful history of European colonisation, especially the genocide of Native Americans.

ETAN also gives thanks for the sovereignty, democracy and peace that currently prevails in Timor-Leste, but we do not forget the shameful colonisation and occupation which foreign invaders, some supported by the United States government, inflicted on your people.

We recommit ourselves to improve democratic practices in the United States and to work for policies which secure human rights, end impunity, and achieve social and economic justice for both our peoples.

Timor-Leste has made more progress in 42 years than the United States has in 241, but both nations have a long way to go, and ETAN looks forward to the continuing journey

ETAN was in 2012 awarded the Order of Timor-Leste, the highest honour in the republic, for its “contribution to the liberation of the country”. Timor-Leste (East Timor) declared independence from Portugal on 28 November 1975, but was invaded by neighbouring Indonesia nine days later.

• Background to the parliamentary deadlock
• More Timor-Leste stories

One accused walked away a free man yesterday while another offered to serve a life sentence if the High Court in Lautoka set free the other 13 co-accused in the Fiji sedition case.

As the month-long Ra sedition trial came to an end, Tui Nalawa Ratu Epeli Niudamu was handed a suspended sentence of two years while the remaining 14 accused were each handed partial sentences that ranged from 18 months to three years.

Ulaiyasi Rabua Tuivomo, however, caught everyone off guard when he addressed Justice Aruna Aluthge, saying he would serve all sentences meted out to the other 13 accused.

“I want to request this honourable court if it is possible if all the accused could be released and I could go to jail for life,” he said.

“If it’s not possible then I will respect the decision of the court.”

The group was accused of conducting secret military training in a remote area of the northern Ra province, as part of a wider effort to form a breakaway Christian state.

RNZI reports defence lawyer Ravindra Singh said the 15 accused continued to maintain their innocence.

“As far as they are concerned they have not committed a crime. They continue to believe that they have the right to champion and advocate for the rights of indigenous people, the rights of indigenous land and indigenous issues,” he said. “And that is exactly what they did and there is no shame in that.

Filing appeals
Ravindra-Singh said he would file appeals to the Court of Appeal from next week.

According to the Office of Director of Prosecutions, the following sentences were handed down:

– Ratu Epeli Niudamu: two year suspended sentence.

– Sailasa Wairoaroa Malani: 2 years in prison, six months of which is suspended.

– Sereima Adidave Rokodi: 2 years in prison, six months of which is suspended.

– Nanise Kasami Nagusuca: 3 years in prison, 12 months of which is suspended.

– Waisea Duailima: 3 years in prison, 12 months of which is suspended.

– Isikeli Waisega Kabakoro: 2 years in prison, six months of which is suspended.

– Laisiasa Mocevakaca: 2 years in prison, six months of which is suspended.

– Emosi Toga: 2 years in prison, six months of which is suspended.

– Waisake Racaca: 2 years in prison, six months of which is suspended.

– Samuela Ligabalavu: 2 years in prison, six months of which is suspended.

– Mikaele Gonerara: 2 years in prison, six months of which is suspended.

– Josefa Natau: 2 years in prison, six months of which is suspended.

– Sulueti Lotu Waqalala: 2 years in prison, six months of which is suspended.

– Ulaiyasi Rabua Tuivomo: 2 years in prison, four months of which is suspended.

– Apolosi Qalilawa: 18 months of prison, 6 months of which is suspended.

• More stories on Fiji

Pacific Media Centre Newsdesk

Australia will pay A$70 million (US$56 million) to asylum seekers detained in Papua New Guinea, after a senior judge has approved a major compensation package, reports Al Jazeera.

The state of Victoria’s Supreme Court awarded the funds yesterday to more than 1300 refugees held at a centre on Manus Island between November 2012 and December 2014, on the grounds of illegal detention and negligent treatment.

The remainder of the almost 2000 detainees from that period have been granted an extra two and a half weeks to join the class action and register for payment if they wish to.

Justice Cameron Macauley declared the decision, which is believed to be the nation’s largest human rights settlement, “fair and reasonable”.

Australia offered the compensation agreement in June, more than three years after lawyers initiated the case brought against the government and two service providers operating on the island.

Officials have previously declared the deal “prudent”, but denied wrongdoing.

Tough policy on asylum seekers
Australian policy dictates that asylum seekers attempting to reach the country by boat are transferred to detention facilities in the Pacific Ocean on Manus, or the island of Nauru; which was not involved in the litigation.

Speaking to Al Jazeera, Nick McKim, immigration spokesperson for the Australian Green Party, said: “The government of Australia wants to appear politically tough on refugees and tough on people seeking asylum.”

As a result, political leaders have a “political imperative” to treat the detainees inhumanely, he said, and “that’s exactly what they’ve done.”

The centre on Manus is due to close next month, following a PNG Supreme Court ruling last year that declared the holding of people on the island was unconstitutional.

The 803 men currently detained will be moved elsewhere in Papua New Guinea, or relocated to third countries, according to government officials.

Lawyers representing the refugees who generated the claim said they are seeking to secure the compensation payment before the centre shuts.

“These detainees came to Australia seeking refuge, compassion and protection, which were all denied to them by successive Commonwealth governments,” said Rory Walsh of the law firm Slater and Gordon.

“Today, the group has finally been delivered justice through the Australian legal system and the Supreme Court of Victoria. The result … will allow meaningful compensation to be paid to group members much more quickly than would otherwise have been the case.”

Distribution of the funds will be overseen by the court, with another hearing scheduled for October to determine when payments will begin.

• Other Manus Island detention centre stories

Pacific Media Centre News Desk

Panguna women protesters have blockaded the copper mine to prevent the signing of a memorandum of understanding by the Bougainville government with the company and also won a court injunction.

Justice Kandakasi ordered in the Waigani National Court on Friday that the MOA cannot be signed until further notice.

Philip Miriori, chairman of the Special Mining Lease Osikaiyang Landowners Inc., welcomed the restraining order.

He said it was good to see that protection from “unjust deprivation of property” under Section 53 of the Constitution of PNG – and preserved in the Constitution of the Autonomous Bougainville Government (Section 180) as adopted by the Bougainville Constituent Assembly at Buin on 12 November 2004 – was being enforced.

The Bougainville Freedom Movement also congratulated the women of Bougainville and their supporters for stopping the Bougainville government on Friday from signing a new agreement for Bougainville Copper Limited (BCL) to reopen the Panguna mine.

“The handpicked BCL landowners who were supposed to sign the agreement for the company were brought to a halt, thanks to the road block protest held on Friday,” said BFM’s Vikki John.

The Panguna mine was abandoned by in 1989 after frustration by landowners erupted into a decade-long armed uprising and a push for Bougainville independence from Papua New Guinea.

‘Seven sisters’ roadblock
Loop PNG reports: “The impenetrable roadblock was led by women chief from the ‘seven sisters’ areas in Central Bougainville.

The mothers, together with their daughters, youths, ex-combatants and Bougainville hardliners, set up the roadblock, which started on Thursday night and lasted throughout Friday. They refused to move for passing vehicles or negotiating team.

“Their message was simple: ‘No BCL, No Mining’.

A woman chief from Guava Village, Maggie Mirau Nombo, and a chief from Arawa and Pirurari, Kavatai Baria, said their land was their ‘Mother’, who provided their everyday needs and no one was allowed to exploit her.

“Chief Maggie, who is a former primary school teacher, said how could those wanting to sign the MOA conduct such an act of injustice?

“She said this would never happen again because they had suffered enough from all the injustice that had been brought on by BCL when it was in operation.

“She said God had heard the cry of the Bougainville women, and justice would prevail.

“As long as I am the Chief from Panguna and Guava Village and owner of my land, BCL is not welcome. This is the company that has killed our sons and daughters. ABG has to stop ignoring the cries of the women and take note that BCL is never allowed to come back to Panguna, and this is final and it is not negotiable,” she said.

“Chief Kavatai also reminded everyone that ‘when God closes a door, no one can open it, and if God opens a door, no one can close it’.

“Panguna Mine was closed by God and if anyone was trying to reopen the mine when it wasn’t God’s timing, then they had better watch out because they were fighting against a big God.

“Because of the strong opposition by the women, youths and Bougainville hardliners, the high-powered ABG delegation, led by President John Momis, returned to Buka on Friday afternoon without signing the MOA.”

The Papua New Guinea 2017 general election is June 24 until July 8.

• Panguna women landowners say BCL didn’t consult and ‘isn’t welcome’

Vanuatu’s President Baldwin Jacobson Lonsdale has died at Vila Central Hospital early today after being rushed to hospital last night, reports Vanuatu Digest.

President Lonsdale, 67, had been Head of State since September 2014.

From Mota Lava island, Lonsdale was previously an Anglican priest, secretary-general of Torba Province.

He did his tertiary studies in Auckland, New Zealand, at St John’s Theological College.

President Lonsdale played a critical role in recent events in Vanuatu. While category 5 Cyclone Pam was battering Vanuatu in March 2015, President Lonsdale was attending a world conference on disaster risk reduction in Japan, and his emotional appeals for international assistance helped galvanise the international humanitarian response to Cyclone Pam, reports Vanuatu Digest.

But arguably his greatest contribution came just seven months later in October 2015 when the then Speaker of Parliament, Marcellino Pipite, abused his position as Acting President to issue a “presidential pardon” to himself and 13 other MPs who had just been convicted of bribery.

The President, en route from Samoa during Pipite’s attempt to undermine the rule of law, returned to Vanuatu and immediately revoked the pardon.

Misuse of powers
During a televised address to the nation, President Lonsdale was visibly upset, expressing his “shame and sorrow” at Pipite’s misuse of his powers.

He vowed to “clean the dirt from my backyard”, telling Vanuatu’s people that “we as a nation have to stop these crooked ways”.

Following a failed appeal against his revocation of Pipite’s pardon, Lonsdale then dissolved Parliament and called a snap election.

President Lonsdale’s actions were widely seen as a decisive blow against Vanuatu’s culture of impunity for corrupt politicians, reports Vanuatu Digest.

Addressing the newly-elected MPs at the opening session of Parliament following the election, he described the new legislature as a “new chart for Vanuatu’s destiny”.

He will also be remembered for his leadership of Vanuatu’s Anglican church, and his strong support for kastom and for women’s rights.

The Vanuatu government is currently making arrangements with his family and Motalava chiefs for a state funeral.

Under the constitution, a new president will need to be elected by MPs and local government chairs within three weeks.

• Vanuatu Justice system alive and strong
• President Lonsdale and the Rainbow Warrior connection

Popular Oro Governor Gary Juffa, one of the opposition leaders contesting Papua New Guinea’s general election next month, has called on the nation to take back the country from elitist “globalised zombies”.

Declaring that Papua New Guinea needed fresh leadership when the country goes to the polls, the People’s Movement for Change Party (PMCP) leader added that it must be one that did not repress the people.

He appeared to be referring to the current government of Prime Minister Peter O’Neill and a host of foreign advisers.

Juffa, who has travelled to Henganofi, Kainantu and Lufa in the Eastern Highlands to endorse his candidates, called on Papua New Guinea to break free from a “colonised mindset” and take back its economy from foreign control.

“Our people need basic services like health, education, law and order, justice, markets and platforms to perform promote and export their art culture and sport,” he said.

Papua New Guineans were convinced by others “who merely exist for profit and material riches alone, whose heads are filled with intelligent schemes and scams but whose hearts are empty.”

‘Sucked the life’
“These globalised zombies, a class of elitist rich who have sucked the life out of their societies are here to do the same,” he said.

“These evil beings and their agents who come to ‘help’ will have our people become so busy thinking and moaning about what we don’t have … that they [will] have us forgetting about the abundant blessings we do have and the great opportunities that come with them.”

Juffa said he had always advocated that Papua New Guinea was a blessed country.

“It has rich soil and there is plenty for everyone,” he said.

“Look at our people. They are great people. Talented and compassionate. They take care of themselves. They provide for their families. We are not a welfare state. We do not need to pay anyone social security.

“What we need to do is economically empower our people. All our people.

“What we must do is provide true loving leadership … that promotes the interests of the people.”

Papua New Guineans will vote between June 24 and July 8.

By Camille Elemia in Manila

She had long anticipated that day to come but when it did, she was brought to tears.

Senator Leila de Lima, the fiercest critic of President Rodrigo Duterte, vowed to face her impending arrest after the Muntinlupa Regional Trial Court Branch 204 in Manila issued a warrant.

READ MORE: Who is the judge who ordered De Lima’s arrest?

Despite questions on the legality of the warrant, De Lima reiterated that she would not evade the law.

“Katulad nang nasabi ko dati, wala po akong balak takasan ‘yung mga kaso ko, walang balak magtago, dahil haharapin ko po ang kaso na ‘yan,” De Lima said in a press conference.

(Like what I said before, I have no plans to escape, I have no plans to hide because I will face the charges against me.)

De Lima, flanked by her colleagues from the Liberal Party, expressed her wish to go home to her family. Her voice broke as she talked about them.

READ MORE: LP senators on pending arrest of Leila de Lima

She vowed to return to the Senate early Friday morning to submit to the arresting officers.

“So uuwi po ako ngayong gabi at babalik po ako rito bukas ng umaga. Dito ko po sa Senado hihintayin ang arresting team. Hihintayin ko po sila, kusa po ako susuko sa kanila. Pero sa ngayon po, ang gusto ko na muna po makapiling ang aking pamilya sa bahay. Babalik po ako bukas ng umaga,” a crying De Lima said.

(So I will go home tonight and come back here tomorrow. I will wait for the arresting team here in the Senate. I will wait for them, I will voluntarily surrender to them. But for now, all I want is to be with my family. I will return tomorrow morning.)

After the media conference, LP senators, who earlier condemned the impending arrest, accompanied De Lima on her way home to Parañaque.

“Siyempre, malungkot tayo dahil ‘di tama yung pagsampa ng kaso sa RTC at yung kakulangan ng ebidensya (Of course we are sad because the filing of charges before the RTC is not right, and also there’s a lack of evidence),” Senator Francis Pangilinan, LP president, told Rappler.

Former president Benigno Aquino III, De Lima’s former boss, has yet to talk to the party, said Pangilinan.

Pray for me, fight is far from over

De Lima took the chance to seek prayers from the public for her security in detention – a concern she had long publicised, citing the deaths of Albuera mayor Rolando Espinosa Sr in a Leyte jail and of South Korean businessman Jee Ick Joo in Camp Crame.

“Sa inyo pong lahat, humihiling po ako ng dasal na sana maging safe and secure po ako saan man ako dalhin, saan man ako ikukulong (To all of you, I ask for your prayers that I be safe and secure wherever they will detain me),” De Lima said.

“Alam ‘nyo naman po ang so-called charges sa ‘kin ay non-bailable. bahala na po aking abogado, kung anong legal remedy gagawin nila dyan sa questionable pagkaka-issue ng order of arrest, warrant of arrest ngayon,” she added.

READ MORE: Backgrounder: What is Leila de Lima being accused of?

(You know that the so-called charges against me are non-bailable. It all depends on my lawyers, whatever legal remedy they will do to question the issuance of an order of arrest, warrant of arrest.)

Despite the emotionally charged press conference, De Lima still managed to show her usual feisty side.

“Tuloy po ang laban ni Leila de Lima, (The fight of Leila de Lima continues),” she said.

Camille Elemia is a journalist with Rappler.

There have been a couple of stories recently in Vanuatu about kava exports and one of the questions that comes up is monitoring exports to make sure that the material that is leaving the country is of the right standard. The following extract from one such story stood up and waved a big red flag in my face:

“While the existing law already provides us with legal power, we need the extra legal backing to put stricter control measures against farmers and exporters and other people for that matter, in particular owners of kava bars who sell ‘makas’ to the exporters.”

This is a quote from the Director of Biosecurity and the “extra legal backing” he is talking about is a 2015 amendment to the Kava Act that has yet to be gazetted. I have no doubt that the amendments to the Kava Act are relevant and important, especially in light of renewed interest in the product overseas.

What I am concerned about is referring to a delay in the availability of new powers as some sort of excuse for enforcing ones that already exist.

I am a lawyer by training and so people often look quite surprised when I answer the question “do you think we need a law to deal with that?” with something along the lines of “probably not”.

Don’t get me wrong, there are definitely areas of the law that need to be revised, to make them more appropriate to modern day circumstances. But in most cases we don’t need a new law or new powers; what we need is to enforce the ones we already have.

It’s quite simple: if you do not have enforcement, you will not develop a culture of compliance. Sure, some people will comply with the law because that is their nature, or it reflects how they have been brought up and educated.

Complying with laws
Some people will take care to comply with laws because if they don’t they may be deported.

But for most of us, knowing that those with power (police officers, customs officials, biosecurity staff etc.) will exercise it and if they do, it will likely result in something we won’t like, is a key driver of making sure we are doing the right thing.

Law enforcement serves several purposes, one of which is deterrence. Enforcement by those in authority deters people from breaking the law. Making enforcement visible is one of the best forms of “awareness raising” there is.

The French have a term for it “pour encourager les autres” – when people around me see the law enforced against me, they check their own behaviour to make sure the same thing doesn’t happen to them.

A particular subset of this topic is around collection of fees, taxes or fines. If a state authority, such as a ministry, is putting forward increasing a fee or a tax, we need to look beyond the headline. If enforcement is weak, an increase of this type means that those of us who comply with the law are being penalised and are in effect subsidising those who don’t pay and are not made to do so by those in authority.

Again, if you want a culture of compliance you need to develop a culture of enforcement.

In late 2015, we saw the successful prosecution of 15 MPs for bribery and they were subsequently found guilty of breaching the Leadership Code. It was a landmark for good governance in Vanuatu, and throughout the region.

Enforcement needed
It did not require the creation of any new laws. What it took was for all the relevant players (police, prosecutors, courts) to enforce laws that have been around for quite some time.

Over the last few years, we have seen the amount of VAT collected rise significantly. That is not because the law has been changed, but because the VAT Office has worked to improve its enforcement procedures. They are now looking to do something similar in relation to collection of import duties. The law hasn’t changed, the culture of the organisation has.

So, next time you hear someone such as a politician or a bureaucrat or (my particular favourite) a “technical adviser” say that what is needed is a new law or a new power or an increase in a fee or penalty, it should prompt you to ask some questions.

What laws or powers already exist to deal with this issue? Are they enforced properly? Will these new measures be any use if no one enforces them? And maybe if you start asking these questions, others will be encouraged to do so as well.

Tess Newton Cain, is the principal of TNC Pacific Consulting. This commentary was first published in the Vanuatu Daily Post.

By Mara Cepeda in Manila

A proposed measure seeking to reimpose the death penalty in the Philippines has decisively passed the House committee level.

Voting 12-6-1, the panel approved the committee report on House Bill Number 1, which seeks to reinstate capital punishment for all “heinous crimes”, including the following:

• Treason
• Qualified piracy
• Qualified bribery
• Parricide
• Murder
• Infanticide
• Rape
• Kidnapping and serious illegal detention
• Robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons
• Destructive arson
• Plunder
• Importation of dangerous drugs and/or controlled precursors and essential chemicals
• Sale, trading, administration, dispensation, delivery, distribution, and transportation of dangerous drugs and/or controlled precursors and essential chemicals
• Maintenance of a drug den, dive, or resort
• Manufacture of dangerous drugs and/or controlled precursors and essential chemicals
• Possession of dangerous drugs
• Cultivation or culture of plants classified as dangerous drugs or are sources thereof
• Unlawful prescription of dangerous drugs
• Criminal liability of a public officer or employee for misappropriation, misapplication, or failure to account for the confiscated, seized and/or surrendered dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment including the proceeds or properties obtained from the unlawful act committed
• Criminal liability for planting evidence concerning illegal drugs
• Carnapping

The bill outlines specific conditions on how these crimes were committed for a violator to be given the death penalty. The measure also provides 3 methods to carry out the death penalty: by hanging, firing squad, or lethal injection. (House death penalty bill: How they voted)

Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez, one of the co-authors of the bill, is hoping that the bill would be passed on 3rd and final reading before Congress goes on Christmas break next week.

The measure is also one of the priority bills of President Rodrigo Duterte, who counts more than 250 congressmen as his allies.

Punishment for ‘Satans’?
For Leyte 3rd District Representative Vicente Veloso, the death penalty bill seeks to punish individuals who repeatedly commit heinous crimes. The lawmaker compared them to “Satan”.

“What the substitute bill says, in our penal system, especially the Revised Penal Code, the maximum penalty there is life imprisonment. The problem really is we have a guy who keeps on raping, kidnapping for ransom people repeatedly, he commits the same offenses,” Veloso said at the committee meeting.

“If in front of you is Satan, what can courts do? None, because the maximum penalty provided for in our penal system is life imprisonment. Kung ang nasa harapan mo ay si Satanas na mismo, oh my God! Bigyan mo naman ang gobyerno ng option para patayin na ‘yan. Satanas na ‘yan ah (If the person in front of you is Satan himself, oh my God! Give the government the option to kill him. That is Satan already)!”

Majority Leader Rodolfo Fariñas also reasoned that the 1987 Constitution allows the death penalty to be implemented if Congress finds compelling reasons to do so.

Section 19, Article III reads: “Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment inflicted. Neither shall death penalty be imposed, unless, for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes, the Congress hereafter provides for it. Any death penalty already imposed shall be reduced to reclusion perpetua.”

Fariñas said there would no discussions on the reimposition of the death penalty now, had the framers of the Constitution completely removed the particular provision.

Bring back trust in legal system
“Nilagay nga po nila [na bawal], pero sinabi nila na nandiyan pa ‘yan at puwedeng ibalik ‘yan ‘pag nakita ng Kongreso na kailangang ibalik ‘yan. Hindi natin puwedeng sabihin na against God ‘yan. Eh bakit nasa Constitution? Eh di against God na ang ating Constitution!” said Fariñas.

(They did put there that it should not be imposed, but they still placed it there and said it can be implemented if Congress sees fit to return it. We can’t say that is against God. Why is it in the Constitution then? That would mean our Constitution is against God!)

Oriental Mindoro 2nd District Representative Reynaldo Umali, committee chairperson, added that restoring capital punishment in the country would help bring back Filipinos’ trust in the justice system.

As of December 3, there have been more than 5800 drug-related deaths, both from legitimate police operations and vigilante-style or unexplained killings.

“EJK versus death penalty. Don’t you realize that people, parang sobrang wala nang tiwala sa hustisya ‘yung mga tao, hindi sila masyadong nagagalit sa EJK? (EJK versus death penalty? Don’t you realize that most people have lost faith in the justice system that they’re not totally angry at EJKs?)… Do we really want to maintain the status quo?” asked Umali.

Death penalty will ‘hurt the state’
But Dinagat Islands Representative Kaka Bag-ao said the death penalty cannot be compared to extrajudicial killings (EJKs).

“Tingin ko hindi puwedeng i-compare ang EJK at death penalty. Magkaiba ang kategorya, magkaiba ang klasipikasyon. Ano ang basehan ng pagkumpara? Ang sinasabi natin na gusto nating matugunan na matigil ang EJKs, pero ‘di puwedeng ikumpara ito na, ‘Ah sige, death penalty.’ ‘Di po ganun,” she said.

(I don’t think you can compare EJKs and the death penalty. They belong to different categories and classifications. What is the basis of the comparison? We want to end these EJKs, but we can’t solve it by saying, “Okay, death penalty.” That’s not how it works.)

“In fact, statistics would show that crime rate decreased after the death penalty law was repealed in 2006. Only 13 percent [or] 474 of the documented 3,524 reports on extrajudicial, vigilante-style, unexplained killings are arrested. The other 87 percent are still at large or under investigation. The real issue is not the imposition of the death penalty but the assurance to the public that offenders will be apprehended regardless of the nature of the penalty,” added Bag-ao.

Quezon City 6th District Representative Jose Christopher Belmonte acknowledged that should a heinous crime be committed against someone close to him, he would not be able to stop himself from considering killing the perpetrator.

But he said doing so would only make things worse.

“‘Pag nangyari sa anak ko o malapit sa akin, most likely gugustuhin ko rin at gagawin ko pa rin po ‘yung ganun. Andiyan na po ‘yan. And I think ‘di mo maaalis sa kahit sinong tao,” said Belmonte.

(If that happens to my child or someone close to me, most likely I’d want to do it and I would do it. The option is there already. And I think you can’t take this away from anyone.)

“Pero (But) from personal knowledge and personal experience, this will diminish everybody involved. This will destroy you as a person. This will hurt the state. This will hurt our entire institutions kapag nilagay natin ang legal option na pumatay (if you give the legal option to kill),” he added.

Church opposition
Minority lawmakers had previously accused the House leadership of “railroading” the passage of the bill into law to meet Alvarez’s deadline, but the Speaker denied this, citing public consultations with various sectors to get their stand on the proposal.

The Catholic Church, human rights groups, and some lawmakers have objected to the reimposition of capital punishment in the country, saying it is not a deterrent to crime. (Lawmakers urged to reject revival of death penalty and A lethal mix: Death penalty and a ‘flawed,’ corrupt justice system)

Amnesty International had earlier expressed concern over the move to restore the death penalty in the Philippines shortly after it became clear that Duterte had won the presidency. (A shame for PH if death penalty is restored)

Lingayen-Dagupan Archbishop Socrates Villegas had called for a prayer rally against the proposed measure in his archdiocese on December 12.

Alvarez, however, advised Filipino Catholics to look for a new religion should they be ostracized for supporting the reinstatement of capital punishment in the country.

The Philippines was the first Asian country to abolish the death penalty under the 1987 Constitution, but it was reimposed during the administration of President Fidel Ramos to address the rising crime rate.

Capital punishment was eventually abolished in 2006, under the presidency of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. Now a Pampanga Representative, Arroyo is still against the reimposition of the death penalty.

Mara Cepeda is a journalist with Rappler.

It has been more than eight years since Nimilote Baleiloa saw the body of his late son Josefa Baleiloa in hospital.

Beaten and bruised, Josefa was laid up in a hospital bed, unconscious and unable to eat.

Josefa’s case was one of 11 featured in an Amnesty International (AI) report released this week titled Beating Justice: How Fiji’s Security Forces Get Away With Torture.

The report focuses on human rights violations perpetrated by Fijian defence forces on suspected criminals and escapees in their custody.

The report alleges Josefa was assaulted in Suva by a police and prison officers.

After the beating, his father claims Josefa was taken to the Nabua Police Station and left in the cell, calling for assistance and screaming in pain from the wounds he sustained.

He said when Josefa was finally taken to hospital, it was too late.

No arrests
He succumbed to his injuries several weeks later and no arrests were ever made in relation to his case.

When The Fiji Times visited Nimilote, he spoke of grief and guilt. Grief that he still carries at the loss of his son and guilt that he was unable to get justice.

He said eight years on, his soul was still not at rest.

Baleiloa said he could have fought harder, but did not have the money to pay lawyers to handle the case. He said it was not easy to live with the knowledge that he would not have justice done.

Baleiloa said he would not give up the fight.

Questions sent to the Fiji Police Force yesterday on the report remained unanswered

Under the 2013 Constitution, “absolute and unconditional immunity has been irrevocably granted to police officers from any criminal prosecution and from any civil or other liability in any court, tribunal or commission, in any proceedings including any legal, military, disciplinary or professional proceedings and from any order or judgment of any court, tribunal or commission, as a result of any direct or indirect participation, appointment or involvement in the government from December 5, 2006, to the date of the first sitting of the first Parliament elected after the commencement of the Constitution.”

‘Sharing a vision’
Fiji Times editor in chief Fred Wesley said today in an editorial that the release of the Beating Justice report “is going to attract a lot of interest”.

• Beating Justice: How Fiji’s Security Forces Get Away With Torture

The chief-executive and the chief-editor of Myanmar’s largest daily newspaper have been detained after a politician accused them of defamation in an article which, was then posted on social media.

Reuters reported, Than Htut Aung, chief-executive of Eleven Media Group, and the newspaper’s chief-editor, Wai Phyo, were arrested on Friday last week.

The article in question made reference to allegations of government corruption.

The two journalists are expected to be in jail for two-weeks while police investigate.

Media have reported the pair have been charged under Myanmar’s controversial telecommunication law.

There next court hearing is due on November 25, 2016.

Amnesty International released a statement which called for the immediate release of the two editors.

‘Serious concerns’

“Arresting and detaining these two men raises serious concerns about the National League for Democracy-led government’s commitment to freedom of expression,” said Rafendi Djamin, Amnesty International’s Regional Director for Southeast Asia and the Pacific.

“While the new government has made some attempts to amend long-standing repressive laws that target activists and media workers, this case shows that those attempts do not go far enough.”

Djamin said journalists play an important role of holding governments to account and repressive laws could led to the self-censorship of journalists.

Increased concerns have been raised over media freedom in Myanmar after Fiona MacGregor, an investigative editor was fired last month at the Myanmar Times. She was accused of being biased against the government after she reported on allegations that claimed security forces raped around 30 ethnic women.

•  Media face blockade over human rights reporting in Myanmar

Grandmothers Against Removals (GMAR) were recipients of the Aboriginal Justice Award at the Justice Awards in Sydney this month.

The group were recognised for their advocacy against indigenous children being forcibly taken away from families as well their contribution to guiding principles for strengthening the participation of local Aboriginal community in child protection decision making.

Laura Lyons, a member of GMAR Sydney, told Asia Pacific Report earlier this year of the forced and unjustified removal of her children and the abuse they faced in a residential care facility.

‘Proud moment’

She said the award was a “proud moment” for the group and believed their ancestors were present to witness it.

‘On our way to the awards we saw a rainbow,’ Lyons explained.

“It was actually Bianca (Lyons daughter) who looked up in the sky and said, ‘mum there’s the rainbow’. I said to her, ‘that’s our ancestors with us’ and I knew we were going to win the award.”

‘Ongoing’

Lyons said her case with the Department of Children Services (DoCS) is ongoing but GMAR continues to be busy travelling to other communities to assist and support families.

GMAR have set up a GoFundMe page to raise money for transport costs to visit other families who need their help.

• Guiding principles for strengthening the participation of local Aboriginal community in child protection decision making
• Laura Lyons case: ‘stolen generations’
• Still stealing the generations – the abduction of Indigenous Australian children goes on
• Stop Stolen Generations

OPINION: By Crispin Maslog

It looks like I am developing a love-hate relationship with you, Mr President. There is much to love about you, Sir, although I did not vote for you. To start with, you have shown political will.

As promised, you have pushed your all-out war against drugs. I love it, and so do 91 percent of other Filipinos. But I hate it when your police kill mostly the poor. The statistics are fluid, but I understand some 3000 have been killed so far. According to reports, many were not given a chance to give up peacefully but were gunned down on the run by police or by assets.

To your critics, I say: Wait three years before we praise or condemn your methods. I can appreciate the argument that if the disease is serious it needs urgent intervention, even surgery.

You showed guts when you said you would push hard on family planning. Previous presidents have all been afraid of the Catholic Church. Not you, Sir. You hit the nail on the head when you said the main reason we are poor is that we do not manage our family sizes. Our development rate cannot match our rate of population increase.

There are other things to love since you took office. Foremost among them are your peace efforts with the National Democratic Front, the Moro Islamic Liberation Front and Moro National Liberation Front, and the Lumad, and your decision to go after the Abu Sayyaf. When you appointed leftist activists to the Cabinet, you showed guts. We pray for your success.

‘Let’s do it’ attitude
I like the “Let’s do it!” attitude among the Cabinet secretaries and the top-level officials of the government bureaucracy. To the list of people I admire in your Cabinet, please add Education Secretary Leonor Briones and Presidential Spokesperson Ernesto Abella, who are Silliman University alumni known for their religious values.

People are still waiting, however, for this culture to sink in to the lowest levels in the barangay.

We in the mass media are impressed by two things you have done or will do for us only three months into your presidency. These two things three previous administrations have not been able or were willing to do.

P-Noy made the campaign promise to pass the freedom of information bill to make government operations transparent.  After six years, nothing. In one month you issued an executive order mandating FOI in the executive branch.

Then you promised to turn PTV Network and the Public Information Authority into a Public Broadcasting System along the lines of BBC. This has been a favourite project of communication academe since I can remember, but commercial interests always blocked our attempts.

Now you have given us hope that sometime soon we can improve the quality of our broadcasting industry with competition from a public broadcasting system. The commercial teleseries have made us an under-informed but over-entertained society.

168 exceptions
But what worries me is that your communication office is listing 168 exceptions to the draft FOI law, which will definitely emasculate it.

Now for some unsolicited advice. I was not really intending to go into this, until US President Barack Obama called you a “colourful character,” in reaction to a diplomatic faux pax you committed.

Please, Mr President, control your temper. I saw that video of you gritting your teeth and swearing under your breath that if the US president asked you about extrajudicial killings at the Asean Summit, you would insult his mother. And, reading your lips, I saw that you actually did, even before you met him in Laos.

Sir, that is just not done in polite society. As President of the Republic, you cannot be the same “colourful character” you were as mayor of Davao City. Those are two different positions.

Earlier, you also verbally abused the Chief Justice. It is a good thing she did not answer back, but kept her cool, and you apologised. I give you brownie points for apologising. It takes a great man to own up to his mistakes.

Then you ran amuck and threw everything, including the kitchen sink, at a senator of the Republic. Even assuming she is guilty as charged, she does not have to be shamed on national television. It runs counter to our culture of saving face.

Innocence legal dictum
Besides, whatever happened to the legal dictum “presumed innocent until proven guilty”? It looks like the senator is now guilty until proven innocent.

Finally, Mr President, I hate your insistence on allowing Ferdinand Marcos to be buried in the Libingan ng mga Bayani. Have you forgotten the abuses of the Marcos regime? I can understand why the millennials do not care if the guy is buried there or not. They do not know any better.

But our generation saw the human rights abuses and the systematic plunder of the Philippine economy by Marcos and his cronies. We know how he fabricated the story of his war medals to get US war veterans’ pension.

Now you want to honour him as a hero? Forget the legalities, Mr President. If anything else, the issue here is morality. It is immoral to bury an SOB in that cemetery. Pardon my French.

Crispin C. Maslog is a former journalist with Agence France-Presse and communication professor at Silliman University and University of the Philippines Los Baños. This commentary was first published by the Philippine Daily Inquirer and is republished by Asia Pacific Report with permission.

• Philippines president’s ‘hit man’ allegations
  

Justice Richard Chetwynd acquitted the three men accused of intentional assault on Florence Lengkon on Friday, accepting the defence’s submission that they had no case to answer on those specific charges.

The people of Vanuatu, however, have still to answer for their silence.

             >>> Dan McGarry comments on the issue on RA’s Pacific Beat

Judge Chetwynd ruled that there was indisputable evidence that Ms Lengkon was struck once “forcefully” on the head on March 13, and said that if that was the case then it is impossible that all three men could be guilty of landing the blow.

But the police officers didn’t ask some very basic questions during that interview, such as how Worwor knew they were involved, whether he actually saw them strike Lengkon, and if so, which of the three of them actually struck her.

Ultimately, the evidence was ruled inadmissible. The three men charged with the assault on Florence Lengkon had no case to answer, and they were therefore acquitted of this serious charge.

But… Justice Chetwynd paused meaningfully before continuing. He scanned the packed courtroom and stated that the fact that over 50 people could have seen what happened and not one of them stepped forward to identify the culprit is “an indictment” on our society.

Evident ignorance
Anyone who has been following the case is within their rights to criticise the lack of thoroughness shown by the investigating officers. Their evident ignorance of basic interrogation and investigative procedure certainly contributed to the lack of a conviction on the assault charge.

One wonders what their Australian Federal Police (AFP) advisers have been doing this past decade.

The judge had no alternative but to acquit the three accused of assault because there was nothing that conclusively proved that any one of them struck the blow that left Lengkon’s eye bruised and swollen shut. We know that someone hit Florence Lengkon, but we still don’t know who it is.

It is admittedly a difficult thing to confront—even passively—a large group of angry men. Florence found that out yet again when she sat alone in the witness box last Tuesday and gave her testimony. Her bravery should be an example to us all.

As the week wore on, more and more people turned up to show support, but on Tuesday she stood alone.

It’s possible to sympathise with the difficult role the police play when they are required to confront an angry crowd, such as the group that gathered that day in March when tempers flared over events down at the wharf.

But let’s not make any bones about it: It’s a tough job, yes. But that’s the job you choose when you choose to join the police force.

Two-way street
In fairness to the police, though, this is a two-way street. If people showed a little more respect for the uniform, if they showed a little more respect for the law, then maybe these situations wouldn’t be so fraught.

One thing that was certainly missing then, and is still missing today, is a common understanding of the basic principles of justice and the law. It’s all well and good to complain that the law is an artificial and imposed construct that doesn’t match well with Melanesian sensibilities. That’s all true.

But that doesn’t mean it’s without value. The basic principle that each person has the same rights as all the others is a good thing. The principle that nobody is above the law is a belief that this nation cleaved to when the bribery case was unfolding.

And if we accept those two precepts, then we have to accept that every single one of us has a responsibility to act to uphold the law.

Justice Chetwynd had the unenviable task of defending the accused against the inadequacy of their prosecution. He would never have been placed in that position had even one of the more than 50 men who saw what happened actually believed in the law enough to take a stand against brutality.

That is an indictment against our society.

Dan McGarry is editorial director of the Vanuatu Daily Post group.

• Dan McGarry’s original report on the assault
• Vanuatu rights advocate Jenny Ligo blasts failed case
• Vanuatu women again denied justice
• Dan McGarry comments on the issue on Radio Australia’s Pacific Beat

Vanuatu gender and human rights advocate Jenny Ligo has called on the Minister of Justice to “revisit resources” made available to curb violence against women.

Ligo, chairperson of Women Against Crime and Corruption (WACC) and Gender Equity in Parliament, made the call after the Supreme Court on Friday acquitted the three drivers – Glen Kovoi, Ben Koro and Charlie Kasuali – on charges of intentional assault against tourism manager Florence Lengkon.

“I believe Vanuatu is producing far too many reports without implementing them because it seems as if the more reports are produced, the less action is seen to be taken against alleged trouble makers,” she said.

She said the acquittal of the three bus and taxi drivers accused of the assault of Lengkon at the Main Wharf last March 13, confirmed that Vanuatu had many “dishonest individuals”.

Justice Richard Chetwynd acquitted the three men on the grounds that they had no case to answer to because no witness came forward to identify them as the assailants of the victim.

Although three names were recorded in statements provided by two police officers, there was no evidence on how Elton Worwor (president of Port Vila Land Transport Association) knew that the three individuals were involved in the assault.

Ligo said it was sad that more than 50 drivers of the PVLTA were present at the Main Wharf on the day and yet none of them could come forward to identify the person or persons who caused the brutal attack on Lengkon.

Kidnapped from workplace
The victim took the case to court after she was kidnapped from her workplace and driven to the Main Wharf, where she was punched, leaving one of her eyes swollen and closed, and forced to apologise to the drivers for criticising their aggressive behaviour at the wharf on Facebook.

The outspoken North Ambaean leader said what happened indicated that women would continue to be denied their right to justice.

“This is especially true when our leaders often remind us that no one is above the law and justice is for everybody,” she said.

Ligo said a second investigation should be ordered into the assault, and the justice system revisited with a view to making relevant changes where necessary.

“When one woman is denied [her right to] justice, then how many other women are also denied their rights?” she asked.

Ligo said what it “boils down to” was an abuse of women and girls’ human rights.

She said she was not afraid to speak out for the voiceless when the public seemed indifferent to “barbaric criminal acts” against women and girls or were too afraid to speak out against the perpetrators.

Len Garae is a senior journalist with the Vanuatu Daily Post.

• Brave woman tells of beating by drivers – special report by Dan McGarry
• Vanuatu marches in opposition too violence against women
• Dan McGarry’s analysis of the scales of justice

The accused MPs, have already served 10 months of their three to three-and-a-half-year jail sentence, but the Vanuatu Independent reported the new convictions could add substantial lengths to these terms.

The maximum sentence for conspiring to defeat the course of justice is seven years in jail.

Three other MPs convicted last year, including former prime minister Moana Carcasses, Steven Kalsakau and another former prime minister Serge Vohor, were not involved in the conspiracy case because they were not at a meeting where the pardons were discussed.

• Bribery case timeline

The University of Papua New Guinea has served a contempt charge against the Students Representative Council lawyer Laken Lepatu Aigilo over the recent two months of protests demanding the resignation of Prime Minister Peter O’Neill.

The young lawyer was served with a contempt of court proceedings notice by UPNG’s registrar Jenifer Popat for allegedly “encouraging” the students to go on strike after the court had restrained the UPNG SRC from doing so.

The university has also blamed Aigilo for the UPNG property damages when a building was set ablaze days after after police had opened fire on a peaceful student protest on June 8, wounding more than 20 people.

The contempt application will be made in the National Court tomorrow by the lawyer representing UPNG, Daryl Kamen.

In response to the notice, lawyer Aigilo welcomed the proceedings.

“I welcome the proceedings and if the law finds me guilty, let me serve the prison term,” Aigilo said.

“The UPNG students took bullets for PNG; I can take a prison term or pay a fine for PNG if found guilty,” he added.

Restraining police
Aigilo represented the students in June to seek a court order to restrain police from arresting and harassing student leaders.

He also sought a court order to summon Police Commissioner Gari Baki, NCD/Central Commander Sylvester Kalaut and NCD Metropolitan Superintendent Ben Turi to come to court and explain why they ordered the shooting of students on June 8.

All these orders sought by the students were refused by the court on the June 15.

Justice Derek Hartshorn ruled that police could not be prevented from performing their constitutional function or be stopped by the court from conducting investigations.

Justice Hartshorn also found the balance of convenience did not favour the students, adding they could still sue for damages from the police.

He said the students had rights under the constitution but the interim injunction they were seeking was an interference of the constitutional function of the police force.

• Amnesty International protests over ‘disgraceful shootings’

The Indonesian government has carried out executions of four convicted drug traffickers, Al Jazeera reports from Jakarta.

The Attorney-General’s office had said earlier on Thursday that 14 people, including foreigners, would be executed “soon”.

The convicts were shot by firing squad at the Nusa Kambangan penal island shortly after midnight on Friday local time (1700 GMT on Thursday) amid pouring rain, according to TV reports.

Deputy Attorney-General Noor Rachmad also confirmed the executions to reporters, according to the AFP news agency. But Rachmad did not say why the 10 other drug convicts were not executed.

Al Jazeera’s Step Vaessen, reporting from Jakarta, said among those who were executed were two Nigerian citizens, a South African citizen and one Indonesian.

“All the others are still waiting their trials to be reexamined,” Vaessen said. “It’s not very clear what actually were the last conclusions why these executions didn’t take place. But the government is saying it has something to do with legal issues.”

The lawyer of Pakistani prisoner Zulfikar Ali earlier told Vaessen that his client was not among those who had reportedly been executed.

‘Lot of pressure’
Al Jazeera’s Vaessen said there had been “a lot of pressure” until the last minute to stop the executions.

The executions were the third set carried out since President Joko Widodo took office in October 2014.

Widodo’s two-year-old administration will have executed more people than were executed in the previous decade.

Fourteen were put to death last year. But one prisoner, a woman from the Philippines, was spared the death penalty at the last minute.

The European Union and the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights had called on Indonesia to impose an immediate moratorium on executions, and the Indian and Pakistani governments also made urgent efforts to save two nationals among the condemned.

The Indonesian government said the death penalty is necessary for narcotics-related crimes because the country was facing a drugs epidemic, particularly affecting young people.

But critics argue that capital punishment is not an effective deterrent and some have also questioned the accuracy of the government’s drug abuse statistics.

The government of Jokowi’s predecessor did not carry out executions between 2009 and 2012, but resumed them in 2013.

• The long cruel reach of Indonesia’s death penalty
• Indonesian executions ‘will put Jokowi on wrong side of history’

Media staff have been threatened and harassed by supporters of Western Province Governor Ati Wobiro, provincial administrator Madowa Gumoi and Fly Care Foundation chairman Norman May, drawing protests over a free press.

The three co-accused were found guilty of conspiring to misappropriate public funds, fraud and abuse of office by the National Court on Tuesday.

The media staff from the Post-Courier, The National and PNG Loop were at the Supreme and National court at Waigani yesterday when the three lost their bail application and were transferred to Bomana prison near the capital of Port Moresby.

The media staff, including two journalists and Post-Courier chief photographer Tarami Legei, were threatened by supporters of the co-accused when Legei started taking pictures of them in the prison vehicle.

The supporters threatened the photographer and tried to strip him of his camera but were stopped by court security guards.

The supporters verbally abused the journalists, saying their governor was “not a thief”.

The reporters told the supporters of the co-accused that they were just doing their job but they were still being intimidated by the crowd.

The police arrived later but the assailants had already fled the scene.

Media Council protest
The Media Council of Papua New Guinea made a statement today, condemning the attack on the newsmen.

Council president Alexander Rheeney, who is also editor in chief of the Post-Courier, urged the public to respect the role of journalists and photographers in Papua New Guinea.

“The harassment and attacks directed at the media personnel at the court precinct on Wednesday were unwarranted and unacceptable,” he said in the statement.

“The Media Council of PNG condemns the actions of those who do not seem to understand the role of the media, especially the need for the media to ensure leaders, including politicians, are accountable to their constituencies and are transparent in the eyes of the people.”

Rheeney thanked the court security and the police for their quick action.

Two women journalists were threatened and abused in Papua New Guinea during recent protests by university students calling on Prime Minister Peter O’Neil to step down as Prime minister.

One of the journalists was abused and threatened by police officers when she was at a police station asking questions, the other was threatened and kicked when police opened fire on University of Papua New Guinea’s students on June 8 to break up a peaceful protest.

Earlier Media Council of PNG protest

Wiranto replaces General (Ret.) Luhut Pandjaitan.

Cabinet Secretary Pramono Anung, told the media that Wiranto was appointed “because he had been well-tested and was experienced in resolving various assignments, especially during the transition period from the New Order to the Reform era in the late 1990s”.

The cabinet secretary neglected to mention that Wiranto’s experience includes a “long and dark record of human rights violations” for which he has never been held accountable, said the three rights groups in a joint statement.

The statement contunued:

“President Jokowi must annul his appointment of Wiranto and instead bring him to justice,” said Basilisa Dengen from Watch Indonesia!

“John M. Miller for the East Timor and Indonesia Action Network (ETAN) called the Wiranto appointment ‘an outrage’. He added that ‘Jokowi has clearly abandoned all pretence to concern about accountability and justice for past human rights crimes’.

Timor-Leste indictment
“Wiranto is the most senior Indonesian official indicted in 2003 by the United Nations’ Serious Crimes Unit, which was a section of the Office of the General Prosecutor of Timor-Leste (East Timor).

“The appointment of Wiranto as a coordinating minister confirms that Jokowi does not consider human rights as a priority of his government. This is not the first time Jokowi [has] appointed military generals with poor human rights records to his administration. Victims and human rights organisations have been waiting for Jokowi to fulfill his election promises to resolve a number of past and present human rights violations.

“‘By installing a human rights violator to a key security position, President Jokowi has insulted our sense for justice. He has turned his back to the victims, survivors and their families, and universal respect to human rights,’ said Adriana Sri Adhiati of TAPOL.”

“TAPOL, ETAN, and Watch Indonesia! urge President Joko Widowo to prove his commitment to uphold human rights and resolve past human rights abuses. It is long overdue for the Indonesian government to reveal the truth and provide justice and reparations to the victims of human rights violations.

“The groups also urge the Indonesian government to work with the Timor-Leste government to promote accountability for human rights violations in Indonesia and East Timor, particularly by implementing the recommendations of CAVR ( Commission for Reception, Truth and Reconciliation) and CTF (Commission for Truth and Friendship).

“The groups also called for President Joko Widodo to apply a strict vetting policy before the appointment of his ministers in order to realise a respectable and competent government.”

Background
East Timor was a former colony of Portugal that Indonesia illegally invaded and occupied in 1975. The UN conducted a referendum on the question of independence in 1999.

After the East Timorese voted overwhelmingly to reject Indonesian rule, Indonesian security forces and militia under Wiranto’s command destroyed most of the territory’s infrastructure, killed more than 1000 independence supporters and forcibly deported more than 250,000 people to West Timor.

The indictment alleges that under international law, General Wiranto, at the time Minister of Defence and chief of the Indonesian Armed Forces, was responsible for crimes against humanity for failing to punish or prevent crimes, including murder and persecution, committed by his subordinates or those acting under his effective control in the period before and after the 1999 popular consultation in East Timor.

The indictment is outstanding but no trial has been held.

The indictment was accompanied by an application for a warrant of arrest, meaning that Wiranto and other indicted military officers face the possibility of arrest and extradition to Timor-Leste should they travel outside of Indonesia.

In 2002, the government of Indonesia set up an Ad-Hoc Human Rights Court for East Timor to hear cases of human rights abuses committed in 1999 in East Timor. However, Wiranto was excluded from list of suspects.

Wiranto was also the commander in-charge when the shootings of Trisakti University students in Semanggi took place, shortly followed by the violent riots of May 1998, which are believed to be the work of of the military. Many student activists are still missing.

The National Commission for Human Rights (Komnas HAM) conducted a pro justicia investigation that concluded that the army commander was responsible for these crimes against humanity. Wiranto refused to participate in the investigation.

Despite his indictment, Wiranto – who once said that the atrocities in 1999 resulted from internal conflict in East Timor with no involvement from the Indonesian military – plays a prominent role in Indonesian politics.

He ran for president in 2004 and 2009 and served the chair of the Hanura Party (People’s Conscience Party), which won 5.26 percent of the national vote in the last election and joined with other parties supporting Jokowi’s run for the presidency.

East Timor and Indonesia Action Network (ETAN) (www.etan.org)
Tapol (www.tapol.org)
Watch Indonesia! ( www.watchindonesia.org)

President Duterte’s war on crime in the Philippines has spawned a nuclear explosion of violence that is spiraling out of control and creating a nation without judges, without law, and without reason.

Do we really want to give the man with the gun the power to judge who are criminals and to kill them?

To decide who is bad and who is good, who deserves to live and who deserves to die?

We might as well disband our courts, dissolve the Department of Justice, and abolish Congress. For there really is no need for law when the barrel of the gun dispenses justice.

The bandwagon that the President has created is a bandwagon of hate – a mob mentality that not only condones but encourages the taking of lives “because they deserve it.”

Yes, drug pushers destroy lives. Yes, criminals behave like animals. But are those who kill them any better? And will the killing stop there?

Mob law
Our people have seen what a mob can do in the hands of a tyrant who knows no law but his own.

Lest we forget, the first person that Marcos executed was a drug pusher. But did he stop there? By the time he was ousted, he was responsible for killing thousands upon thousands of people whose only fault was their belief in justice, the rule of law, and human rights.

President Duterte, do not kill in my name. That is not your mandate, that is not what you were elected for.

Yes, go after the drug cartels and criminal syndicates, the corrupt, the criminals among us. But do it as an officer of the law you have sworn to uphold as a lawyer and a President.

Atty. Jose Manuel “Chel” I. Diokno is national chairman, Free Legal Assistance Group
Trustee, Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism. This commentary was first published on the PCIJ blog.

• Drug suspects murdered in Filipino President Duterte’s war on crime

Justice Andrew will be supported by a team of technical and legal experts that will soon be appointed.

This follows the killing of an engineering student at the University of Technology at Lae by off-campus attackers last weekend, the burning of buildings and cars at the University of Papua New Guinea and clashes at the University of Goroka last week,  and the police opening fire on peacefully protesting students at UPNG on June 8 with some 23 people wounded.

Prime Minister Peter O’Neill said in a statement the commission was essential in helping to better understand what transpired in recent weeks, as well as preventing a repeat in the future.

“We all need answers, right around the country, to understand the factors leading to the escalation of student protests and the acts of violence that we have seen in recent weeks,” O’Neill said.

“This Commission of Inquiry will be independent and thorough and seek to get to the bottom of this issues identified in its terms of reference.

“I call on all relevant parties to work with the Commission of Inquiry as members go about their tasks.”

The Commission of Inquiry will look into the following matters leading to protests and violence of recent weeks:

•       The role of the Student Representative Councils
•       The role of the management of the affected universities
•       The role of police
•       Whether there was outside influence and whether students were incited to encourage unrest at the universities.

The full terms of reference for the investigation will be published in the coming weeks after being finalised, the statement said.

Meanwhile, in other developments yesterday reported by Loop PNG after six weeks of anti-government student protests and class boycotts:

• National Capital District Governor Powes Parkop earlier called on Prime Minister O’Neill to make a bold decision to find a solution to the ongoing destruction of properties and students’ fight at state-run universities. “I call upon the Prime Minister to take immediate and decisive action to arrest the situation,” Parkop said, while he also challenged students to take responsibility of their future and not destroy university property.

• Minister for Works and Implementation Francis Awesa condemned the killing of a first-year male engineering student at the University of Technology in Lae last weekend. Awesa described the brutal murder of the student in his room as “a very primitive, barbaric and a cowardly act” by criminals lacking intelligence and had no regard at all for human lives.

• A group of men broke into two rooms at the Luavi hall of residence for female students at the University of Papua New Guinea in Port Moresby around 1am yesterday morning. Only six female students were at Luavi 3 and were located a few floors above the site of robbery.”I heard a loud hammering below me then I heard men walking up and down the stairs,” a final year student said. “I woke up and used my bed to block the door. There were no guards … It’s very unsafe on campus.”

• Unitech student dies after PNG attack

On 2 June 2016, human rights activist and lawyer Andy Hall took to the witness box in a dimly lit criminal court in Bangkok. The court interpreter administered the oath, asking Hall to swear to the Lord Buddha that his evidence would be the truth and to accept the greatest calamities and divine judgement for any lies he would tell.

Hall’s lawyer then commenced the examination-in-chief of Hall in his defence against a private prosecution brought on by Natural Fruit Company Ltd.

Hailing from Lincolnshire, England, Andy Hall has been living in Thailand for the past 11 years working closely with migrant workers in Thailand and Myanmar on labour and migration issues.

In 2012, Hall led a team in conducting field research into three Thai companies that export their products to foreign markets. The first two were tuna companies, Thai Union Manufacturing and Unicord, and the third was a pineapple concentrate processing company, Natural Fruit.

The research resulted in the publication of a 2013 Finnwatch report titled “Cheap Has a High Price”. It relayed Mr Hall’s research, stating that these companies’ factories exploited vulnerable migrant workers from Myanmar.

This included the use of child labour, forced/bonded labour, unlawful wage arrangements, and human trafficking. The tuna companies engaged in dialogue with Finnwatch and other third parties to resolve the issues raised. Natural Fruit on the other hand did not respond, but instead laid civil and criminal defamation proceedings against Hall for his involvement in the report and a further interview he did with Al Jazeera while in Myanmar.

The criminal defamation charges regarding the Al Jazeera interview has already been dismissed, with the Thai Court of Appeal unanimously ruling that the police and the Office of the Attorney-General had no jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute the matter.

What is currently under way is the prosecution over the Finnwatch report, which commenced on 19 May 2016 in Bangkok South Criminal Court, with the civil suits to follow pending the outcome of this prosecution.

Although he was not surprised with his findings in the field, Hall did not expect this legal response from Natural Fruit.

“I’ve never had any problems like this before. It was very unpredicted. Most of the industries support our work. We work with Thai unions, we work with many companies without problems.”

When asked what the usual response was by other companies who are presented with similar reports on their supply chains, Hall said that “they continue on by fixing and addressing the issues raised. In reality to export to the European markets they need to respect human rights and corporate social responsibility.”

Despite the laying of these charges and the fact that he was arrested and detained by the police, Hall has found the judicial process has been fair to him.

He was granted bail within hours after his arrest and is now being represented by a team of three defence lawyers against three prosecutors in a trial before a judge alone.

Since one of the defences against a claim of defamation is that the statements were made in good faith and reasonable belief that they were true, Hall had to detail how he conducted his research and what they were based on to the presiding judge.

Clear account
Hall gave a clear account of the individuals working for Natural Fruit he interviewed with his team. He recounted his interviews of workers falling victim to scams by human traffickers, having their passports confiscated upon arrival at the factory, using child labour, illegally low wages, and dangerous work conditions with workers resulting in workers’ deaths and loss of limbs.

Hall ended his testimony by stating that at no point did he and Finnwatch encourage consumers to stop buying products supplied by Natural Fruit. His aim has always been to encourage communications between stakeholders so that the receiving companies are aware of their supply chains, maintain high standards of corporate social responsibility, and improve working conditions and respect for human rights.

This too is a key response to the allegations of criminal defamation from Natural Fruit, who must prove intention.

Somewhat ironically, the legal proceedings commenced by Natural Fruit has resulted in greater interest from civil society, human rights organisations, and consumers around the world.

Hall was not surprised by the labour issues he uncovered, stating that the findings were “expected, normal, it wasn’t a big issue until they prosecuted me. Nobody cared.”

While Hall will continue his advocacy in this region in future projects, he understands why there are few people willing to walk down the same path as him.

“It’s normal in Thailand that if you do this kind of research they’ll just kill you. I’m lucky because I have white skin. If you’re Thai or Myanmar they will just kill you. That’s why people don’t often do the research here.”

Cross-examination
Andy Hall’s trial will resume tomorrow with the prosecutors cross-examining Hall, followed by further witnesses for the defence case.

Hall is supported each day at ourt by members of Migrant Workers Rights Network, Human Rights Development Foundation, and other personal supporters.

He expects to file counter-suits against Natural Fruit if the judge finds him not guilty. In the event that he is found guilty however, the charges he faces carry a combined maximum sentence of seven years’ imprisonment.

Nid Satjipanon is a public defence criminal lawyer in Auckland who has a number of years of experience in human rights advocacy. He is currently in Bangkok covering this case. This is his first article for AsiaPacificReport.nz

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

An urgent application by the University of Papua New Guinea’s Student Representative Council (SRC) president Kenneth Rapa and the SRC against the vice-chancellor, Professor Albert Mellam and Police Commissioner Gari Baki and others has been turned down by the National Court.

On Wednesday, the students requested an ex parte hearing (a hearing without the opposing party present) with Judge David Cannings in a bid to obtain a restraining order to remove police from campus.

Instead, Judge Cannings opted for an in parte hearing and ordered that all parties be served with the notice.

Yesterday, he rejected the application on lack of evidence provided.

“There is insufficient evidence before the courts to demonstrate which particular rights of students have been breached,” Judge Cannings said.

After making this ruling, Judge Cannings said the police must be reminded of their constitutional duties to maintain peace and order and students to not resort to violence.

Judge Cannings said the SRC was free to bring the issue back to court after it collects enough evidence to support the allegations of suppression of freedom of expression.

Return hearing
SRC lawyer Robby Yasan said after the hearing that he would be back either today or tomorrow to pursue the matter.

The National reports that Prime Minister Peter O’Neill said every citizen, including the protesting university students, had the right to free speech — as long as it did not undermine the rights and safety of others.

He said this after receiving petitions from the student representative councils at both the University of PNG in Port Moresby and at the University of Technology in Lae.

“Papua New Guinea is a country in which democratic process is universally cherished and respected by our people,” he said.

“Every citizen has the right to speak their mind as long as this is done in a way that does not undermine the rights and safety of others.

“I commend students who have expressed their right to free speech in a responsible manner.”

The students, who have been boycotting classes in the past three weeks, had been trying to present their petitions to him personally.

Included in their demands is for O’Neill to step aside while police investigate allegations of corruption against him.

But O’Neill had reiterated he would willingly step down only if someone could provide the evidence that he had done something illegal.

The 24 deadline given by the UPNG students  for a response has lapsed with apparently no response from the prime minister.

• Photo gallery of Citizen Journalist protest images
• Prime minister gets UPNG, Unitech petitions

By Serah Aupong in Port Moresby

Former Chief Ombudsman and Police Commissioner Illa Geno says investigations into allegations against the Prime Minister should continue without interference.

Speaking to EMTV News earlier this week, Geno, who is also an individual member of the Community Coalition Against Corruption, supports the call by the coalition for other constitutional offices such as the Ombudsman Commission to assure the public that they are addressing the serious allegations that have been made against public office holders.

Through his time in public office, Geno has been the police commissioner, chair of the public service commission and the chief ombudsman. He said the integrity of an individual and the integrity of the constitution must be upheld at all costs.

“Rule of law must be upheld without fear or favour. Everyone in this country is subject to the constitution. We are very fortunate that we have a constitutional democracy and in my view, democracy will not work on its own,” he said.

“We must have a very strong rule of law, which is the constitution to make it work. The challenge is that those officers who are manning, who are at the helm leading those institutions they must work otherwise we have lost the plot.”

Speaking about the events surrounding the questioning of the Prime Minister, and allegations of his involvement in the Paul Paraka issue, Geno said the investigations needed to be completed.

“The allegations of criminal offences and when the police officer authorised by the constitution (under section 196, 197 and 198), under reasonable suspicion believe offence has been committed, they have to act without referral to anybody, no,” Geno said.

Moral integrity
Former Chief Justice Sir Arnold Amet said in a separate interview from Madang that the moral integrity of the Prime Minister’s office needs to be protected and the Prime Minister O’Neill needed to go in for questioning.

“All that he needs to do is simply volunteer to go in and answer the questions from the fraud squad officers. Then the warrant of arrest will be rendered unnecessary and the calls to step aside. Although not required under any law at the present, it’s a moral issue,” he said.

Geno added that he believed there was cause for concern in regard to the issue of vetting investigations by higher-ranking officials.

“Any member outside of the police force to be involved in the vetting process, that is unconstitutional and also arguably may tantamount or impeach on the role of the judiciary,” Sir Arnold said.

He also said its time the Ombudsman Commission should state clearly if they are investigating a serious allegation of the breach of the leadership code.

“The ball is in the court of the Ombudsman Commission whether they are going to do anything about it or not. That is their call, but as a former Chief Ombudsman I can see that from observation multiple leadership breaches have already been committed,” he said.

So far the Prime Minister has maintained, through media statements and in Parliament, that unless evidence of his involvement is produced he will not go in for questioning.

“I’ve always stated this and will say this again, very clearly. If there is one evidence that I receive one financial benefit I will resign tomorrow,” the PM said.

Serah Aupong is an EMTV News journalist in Papua New Guinea.

• Former PM says O’Neill should submit to police investigation
• The National refuses to publish distinguished jurist’s statement

At least 16 NGOs grouped in the Anti-Death Penalty Civil Society Coalition told a press conference that the death penalty was not the solution to addressing crime in Indonesia, especially crime related to drugs.

The coalition’s statement comes ahead of the third round of executions of drug convicts, which many expect to be conducted very soon.

Indonesian Drug Victim Advocacy Brotherhood ( PKNI ) head Totok Yulianto said there had been a rise in the number of drug convicts despite the executions carried out in 2015.

Under the administration of President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo, the government has conducted two rounds of executions.

Six death row inmates were executed on January 18 last year, followed by eight more in the second round on April 29, 2015

Totok said there were 65,566 drug convicts recorded in January 2015, adding that that number had rose to 67,808 people by May 2015.

“Even though the government had carried out executions in January and April. This shows that the death penalty does not create a deterrent effect. This is data from the directorate general of corrections,” Totok said, as quoted by Kompas.com on Wednesday.

Correcting behaviour
Impartial director Al Araf said punishment in the modern era no longer followed the principle of retaliation; rather, it was aimed at correcting the behavior of someone who has broken the law.

“We do not support criminal acts at all. We reject the death penalty and instead lean more toward life sentencing, because the death penalty clearly violates human rights principles,” he said.

Given the nation’s fragile justice system, procedural violations in the implementation of the death penalty were still common, Araf added.

Citing the example of Zainal Abidin’s case, whose appeal was rejected almost immediately, Araf suggested this was because the convict, found guilty of possessing 58.7 kilograms of marijuana in 2000, had already been listed in the second round of executions.

“Just imagine, the legal process hadn’t yet finished, and when he lodged his appeal it was rejected within four days. This is clearly outside of the principles of justice,” he added.

Meanwhile, police have said the third round of executions was ready to be carried out in May 2016. The firing squad has been prepared for the execution of 15 drug convicts.

The Central Java police, in charge of Nusakambangan prison island where the convicts will be executed, said it was awaiting instructions from Attorney-General Muhammad Prasetyo.

So far, the Attorney-General’s Office has not disclosed the execution date or the identities of the convicts.

What I want to write about is what many University of Papua New Guinea students seem to be thinking at the moment about “Justice for PNG”.

Those of us who completed their university studies years ago are much wiser today than when we were doing our studies.  We were very idealistic and optimistic.  You might also say that at that age our lack of experience also made us very naïve.

I remembered that today when a friend told me that UPNG students seriously believe that if they push again and again, the Prime Minister Peter O’Neill will finally give in and accept their petition in person.

These conscientious, caring young people also think that the PM will think about the petition and, as the boycott continues, will decide to honour the student demand and step down.

What naïve thoughts!  The students optimism is wonderful to see but once they see for themselves that their optimism is in error, they might well go the opposite direction, feeling like giving up and being depressed when they see that the government doesn’t plan to budget.

The rest of us as citizens of this great country, must not allow the students to lose their energy.

Right now, the students are wasting time with false hopes.  They quickly need to bring in some wisdom to help them understand that the PM is not going to accept their petition or honour their demand.

PM holds the power
The PM will back down only when he sees that student power far exceeds his power as PM, armed with police support.  At the moment, the PM easily holds most of the power.

This can change but only if the students stop wasting time worrying about petitions that will be ignored anyway.

The only thing will change the balance of power in the student’s favour is people power.

Adding large numbers of supportive citizens to the numbers of boycotting students is the only ammunition guaranteed to defeat the PM.

This is roughly how much people power you need to force prime ministers to step down elsewhere in the world:

Precious planning time
The students should be using this precious time to plan how to carry out awareness in ways that the government cannot detect.

They need to know enough about the issues facing our country to explain it to the public.  I was very pleased to see the resource book that PNG Blogs made available for us to download.

I urge all students in PNG to immediately get a copy of this resource book and read about the issues.  Then go out and spread the word.  Spread your energy to people on the streets.

Don’t waste any more time thinking about petitions or the power of boycotts.  The greatest value  of the boycott is to give you  the time to do awareness and build up a people power movement.

I pray that the students will acquire the wisdom to see that they have a lot yet to do before they can defeat the PM.

The only way to win is to create a people power movement.

Peter Laska is a PNG Blogs contributor.

• Unitech awareness event exceeds all expectations

Two lawyers from Australia have been taken on board the defence team representing 11 of the jailed Vanuatu politicians facing charges of conspiracy to defeat the course of justice.

The defendants charged in this case are: Marcellino Pipite, Paul Telukluk, Silas Yatan, Tony Nari, John Amos, Arnold Prasad, Tony Wright, Sebastien Harry, Thomas Laken, Jean Yves Chabot, and Jonas James.

The groups – Amnesty International, ETAN (East Timor and Indonesian Action Network), TAPOL and Watch Indonesia! – have made their plea in an open letter to Minister Luhut Panjaitan.

In their letter, the groups have argued that the national symposium on April 18-19 must be followed by a full investigation into human rights violations committed between 1965 and 1966.

This was not only to “establish the truth” but to also ensure that those “suspected of committing crimes are prosecuted”.

The rights groups also said the authorities must provide “full and effective reparation” for the victims and relatives.

“A formal public apology, including acknowledgement of the facts and acceptance of state responsibility, must not be ruled out,” the tights groups said.

On the night of 30 September 1965, the Indonesian army led by General Suharto aborted a coup attempt against then-President Sukarno and blamed the Indonesian Communist Party, reports ETAN.

‘Murderous campaign’
“Backed by the West, General Suharto unleashed a murderous campaign of terror against suspected communists and alleged associates, including leftwing activists, artists and intellectuals, peasant’s groups and labour unions,” reported ETAN.

Suharto took over as President and maintained hardline authoritarian rule in Indonesia for decades to come and estimates put the death toll at more than 500,000 during the purge.

The open letter says:

29 April 2016

Dear Minister,

TRUTH-SEEKING AND FORMAL PUBLIC APOLOGY ESSENTIAL FOR 1965/1966 RESOLUTION

Amnesty International, ETAN (East Timor and Indonesia Action Network), TAPOL and Watch Indonesia! are writing to urge you to take the important steps necessary to ensure that the national symposium on the 1965 tragedy, held in Jakarta on 18 and 19 April, leads to justice, truth and reparation for victims.

This initiative must be followed with a full investigation into human rights violations committed between 1965 and 1966. This is to not only establish the truth of what happened but also, where sufficient admissible evidence exists, ensure that those suspected of committing crimes are prosecuted. Further, the authorities must also ensure that victims and their relatives are provided with full and effective reparation. A formal public apology, including acknowledgement of the facts and acceptance of state responsibility, must not be ruled out.

The symposium, ‘Examining the 1965 Tragedy: A Historical Approach’ (Membedah Tragedi 1965: Pendekatan Kesejarahan), brought together survivors, scholars, human-rights activists, artists, members of the Indonesian military and government officials to give testimony about the events that happened across Indonesia following an abortive coup in September 1965. These crimes, which have been documented by human rights organisations, include: unlawful killings, torture, enforced disappearances, rape sexual slavery and other crimes of sexual violence, slavery, arbitrary arrest and detention, forced displacement and forced labour. Many victims and their families faced violations of their social, economic and cultural rights, and continue to experience discrimination in both the law and in practice. There have been many instances where internal meetings or public events about the 1965-1966 violations held by victims or human rights NGOs, especially around the 50th anniversary in 2015, were disbanded or harassed by vigilante groups while police failed to intervene.

A three-year investigation into the violations was carried out by the National Human Rights Commission (Komnas HAM) and completed in July 2012. The Commission found evidence of widespread human rights violations committed across the country between 1965 and 1966, and that violations continued at a lower level well into the late 1970s.

According to the Commission, these findings meet the criteria of gross human rights violations, and include crimes against humanity, as defined by the Indonesian Law No. 26/2000 on Human Rights Courts. To date, however, there has been no indication that the Attorney General will even launch an investigation.

Meanwhile attempts to establish a truth commission on the national level have stalled due to a lack of political will.

A number of key recommendations were highlighted in the concluding comments delivered directly at the symposium to move the process forward. Some of these calls echo those made over decades by many human rights groups calling for an end to impunity for the appalling human rights violations committed across Indonesia between 1965 and 1966 including: the need to recognise state involvement and its role in the events; the need to provide right to truth, justice and reparation victims and their families; an end to the stigmatisation of survivors and the discriminatory laws and practices that prevent them enjoying full citizenship; and a call to authorities to end all forms of restrictions against the right to freedom of expression and assembly for any public discussion of the events.

The symposium will serve as a useful step towards ending impunity for human rights violations committed by the Indonesian security forces against suspected members and sympathisers of the Indonesian Communist Party (PKI) between 1965 and1966.

Our organisations reiterate that the government’s commitment to establish a non-judicial mechanism to resolve past human rights cases, does not change Indonesia’s obligations under international law to investigate and, if sufficient admissible evidence exists, prosecute those suspected of human rights violations and crimes under international law in fair trials without recourse to the death penalty. Furthermore, this mechanism does not replace the government’s obligations to provide rights with an effective remedy including the truth and full and effective reparation to address the harm they have suffered.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

Amnesty International, ETAN, TAPOL and Watch Indonesia! call on the Indonesian government to undertake the following steps as a matter of priority:

• Take steps to ensure that the Indonesian authorities fulfil their obligations to provide the victims of 1965 rights with access to truth, justice and reparations and include a full investigation into human rights violations committed between 1965 and 1966 to establish the truth and, where sufficient admissible evidence exists, ensure that those suspected of committing crimes including those with command responsibility, are prosecuted in civilian courts in proceedings which meet international fair trial standards, without recourse to the death penalty;
• Issue formal public apology, including acknowledgement of the facts and acceptance of responsibility;
• Ensure that all forms of restrictions against public discussions on 1965 are lifted and ensure that the government starts listening to victims and others, instead of supressing their voices.

Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions. We would be pleased to discuss this matter with you.

Yours sincerely,

Rafendi Djamin (Director for Southeast Asia Pacific Regional Office of Amnesty International)

John Miller (National Coordinator of ETAN)

TAPOL

Alex Flor (Watch Indonesia!)

• ETAN
• Indonesia holds dialogue on 1960s purge
• Indonesia’s 1965 anti-communist purge

The announcement came after Papua New Guinea’s Supreme Court yesterday found the centre to be unconstitutional.

In a statement today, Prime Minister Peter O’Neill said he had considered the ruling and welcomed the outcome.

“Respecting this ruling, Papua New Guinea will immediately ask the Australian government to make alternative arrangements for the asylum seekers currently held at the Regional Processing Centre,” he said.

A five-judge panel of Papua New Guinea’s Supreme Court has held unanimously that the detention of asylum seekers at the Australian-built detention facility on Manus Island is unconstitutional and illegal under PNG law. That detention must end immediately.

What is the background to this case? And what might the implications be for Australia’s offshore detention regime? Madeline Gleeson reports.

Where did the case come from?
Papua New Guinea’s opposition leader, Belden Norman Namah, first launched a challenge to the legality of offshore processing in his country three years ago. PNG had recently signed an agreement under which Australia’s Gillard government would transfer some 350 men, women and children to a detention facility on Manus Island.

The asylum seekers were ostensibly there to be processed, but even at that early stage something clearly was not right. At the fortified makeshift camp, facilities were inadequate and refugee processing was non-existent.

Children as young as seven were being held “illegally and indefinitely under inhumane conditions”, Namah said. He called on the PNG government to face up to court and respond to these charges directly.

From strong beginnings the case took a circuitous route to conclusion. As it became bogged down in procedural matters, PNG signed a new agreement with Australia.

The original families and single men on Manus were replaced by a new cohort of nearly 1000 adult men who had no prospect of resettlement in Australia. As the facts kept shifting, and the case evolved, detention times blew out.

The case barely made news in Australia. There was a brief flare of interest in mid-2014, when it came to light that Australian taxpayers were footing the bill for the PNG government’s legal costs – some A$370,000 to that date alone.

But a distracted public did not stop the case progressing. And, on Tuesday, the judgment finally came in.

What comparisons can be made with Australian law and cases?
The judgment in this case comes just 12 weeks after Australia’s High Court handed down its judgment in the matter of Plaintiff M68.

These cases invite obvious comparison. Both challenged key pillars of Australia’s offshore processing regime, examining the circumstances in which the offshore detention of asylum seekers may be lawful and appropriate. Both involved belated legislative changes, rushed through the respective parliaments after the cases had commenced, in apparent attempts to give retroactive legal coverage to conduct that might otherwise be unlawful.

Perhaps most crucially, both cases should have been decided years earlier, to avoid the undue hardship caused by detention on Nauru and Manus Island in the interim.

But the similarities end there.

The Australian judgment was touted as a win for its government. It was said to leave Australia free to transfer asylum seekers and refugees back to Nauru at its discretion (although in reality the outcome was more nuanced than that).

In contrast, the PNG judgment has been heralded as a win for Namah – and, more specifically, the 850 men who are still detained on Manus Island. This judgment does not allow business to continue as usual. Australia and PNG must change their policies to bring them into line with the law.

At the heart of the difference between these two outcomes is each country’s constitution – in particular the comprehensive charter of rights enshrined within that of PNG. This charter guarantees to asylum seekers and refugees in PNG something they would not have in Australia: the right to be free.

The PNG Constitution provides that “no person shall be deprived of his [or her] personal liberty”, unless restraint is necessary to achieve one of nine exceptional and enumerated purposes, each clearly set out.

In this case, the Supreme Court held that none of the exceptions applied – and that a tenth proposed by the government was invalid. Accordingly, the detention of people transferred from Australia has no valid basis in PNG law.

In Australia, where no such protections are constitutionally guaranteed, this case would probably have reached a very different outcome.

What are the implications for PNG and Australia?
This judgment is likely to have profound implications for Australia’s offshore processing regime in PNG, and the agreement as it stands between the countries.

PNG’s position is clearest: the government is bound by the judgment of its highest court. If it did wish to continue to detain people on Manus Island, it would need to pass a valid constitutional amendment to legislate around the court’s judgment. But this approach seems unlikely.

In March, PNG Prime Minister Peter O’Neill acknowledged the Manus Island detention centre had damaged his country’s reputation and warned that refugees could not be held there forever.

The centre has also been controversial with the Manusian people since before it even opened. Locals lament the trouble it has brought to their province, and the lack of commensurate economic or social benefits.

Logistically it will not be simple. But PNG has strong reasons to bring an end to immigration detention on Manus Island.

What, then, is the impact of this case on Australia’s offshore processing policy?

Immigration Minister Peter Dutton’s response was predictable but inadequate:

No-one who attempts to travel to Australia illegally by boat will settle in Australia.

At a time when sound answers are needed, this hackneyed refrain provides none.

Offshore processing is an Australian policy. PNG never promised to settle every refugee transferred into its territory. Its position on settlement is clear: it will settle only those who are willing and able to sustain themselves. PNG simply does not have the capacity to support everyone else, especially refugees with more complex protection needs. That’s where it comes back to Australia.

This latest judgment in no way lessens Australia’s responsibilities with regard to its offshore processing regime on Manus Island. All it does is add new urgency to the situation, since the government can no longer detain the men there indefinitely until a solution is finally found for them – or until they give up and go home.

This is absolutely not a matter wholly for PNG. Australia created this situation jointly with its neighbour. Now it must fix it.

Madeline Gleeson is research associate at the Andrew and Renata Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law, University of NSW Australia. This article was first published by The Conversation and is republished under a Creative Commons licence. Her new book, Offshore: Behind the wire on Manus and Nauru, is out now.

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

“While these matters [corruption allegations] are before the courts, he has to respect that no person is guilty until proven so in a court of law based on compelling evidence,” he said.

“I have always stated – show evidence of me benefiting financially or otherwise and I will resign.

“I would never do so because Somare or [another former PM, Sir Mekere] Morauta think I should, their motive is simply sour grapes.”

Somare said that O’Neill, whose arrest had been sought in relation to a major fraud investigation for two years, should respect the Office of the Prime Minister and surrender so police could carry out their duties without obstruction.

O’Neill has fended off the investigation and arrest attempts through legal challenges.

The Prime Minister said that if his former PM criitics thought they had support, they should both combine and “face us at the elections”.

“But from recent memory when the people voted, Morauta lost badly in 2002 and Somare lost badly in 2012,” O’Neill said.

Looking at the issues he had raised, it was a fact that “I did not receive money in my bank account like Somare has”.

Somare needed to explain why PNG government money from the community college fund ended up in his personal account number in Singapore, claimed O’Neill.

Personal benefits
His son and him had benefited directly while PNG was left with incomplete community colleges and with millions of US dollars in loans taken out for this project, while Somare got millions of dollars in his pocket, alleged O’Neill.

This matter was being pursued by the Singapore public prosecutor with Somare’s Singapore partners.

If anyone should resign, Somare should resign and he should be charged, alleged O’Neill.

“It is all very well to point fingers, but people must only do so with clean hands,” he said.

“The same goes for Sir Mekere Morauta.

“While our people in Western Province are dying, he continues to keep their funds parked in the SDP fund in Singapore.

“It is the people’s money that pays exorbitant fees to Morauta and his consultants, and for them to travel first class around the world.

“This is money that belongs to the people of Western Province and should be given to them to use for their own community benefit, but while Morauta splurges their money they continue to suffer.

“This is a fact that was confirmed by courts in Singapore recently.

“What a load of first-class hypocrisy we see from Somare and Morauta – they should hide their heads in shame,” O’Neill added.

• Somare calls on PM O’Neill to surrender to police
• PNG founding father says O’Neill should stand down
• Former PNG PM hits out at O’Neill

By Thompson Marango in Port Vila

The Supreme Court decision to ban the 14 convicted former MPs from holding public offices in Vanuatu for 10 years has been upheld after the appeal by two of the former politicians was dismissed by the Appeal Court.

The principle argument of the appeal was that the MPs were no longer leaders when the ban was made last December after the Leadership Code charges were invoked by the Public Prosecutor.

The two appellants, Willie Jimmy and Silas Yatan, claimed the December decision should have happened earlier in October when they were initially convicted for bribery and corruption. They said they were no longer leaders when the ban was made.

“In our opinion this argument is misconceived,” the Appeal Court ruled in its judgment on Friday.

“The provisions in the Leadership Code, section 41, 42 and 43 are not substantial, they are in a nature of sanction here because of the conviction of the corruption case.”

The Appeal judges added in their ruling that the provisions simply followed the conviction on the bribery charges.

“They do not create new offences,” the Appeal Court ruled.

Suspended MPs
The Supreme Court suspended the former MPs’ rights to hold public office last year according to  Section 41 of the Leadership Code that covers the dismissal of a leader from office and Section 42 ‘Disqualification from future office’: “Where the leader is dismissed from office under section 41 the leader is disqualified from standing for election as, or being appointed as, a leader of any kind for a period of 10 years from the date of the conviction”.

Section 43 on “Loss of benefits” further stipulates: “If the leader is entitled to any other payment or allowance, on ceasing to be a leader, as a result of being dismissed from office under this Act, the entitlement ceases”.

The Leadership Code charges were originally part of the case during Preliminary Inquiry stages in the Magistrate Court.

When admitting the case to Supreme Court, the Chief Magistrate dropped the charges saying the Ombudsman would have to issue a report.

An Ombudsman report was made and the charges were added to the case by Supreme Court Judge, Mary Sey.

After the conviction of the bribery case the process followed by the Ombudsman investigation was challenged and the report was later declared null and void.

Leadership charges
The Leadership Code charges were brought back to the case following the appeal judgment on the bribery case  last year.

The Public Prosecutor last year had requested the Appeal Court during the bribery case appeal hearing for the Leadership Code charges not to be considered so that if the appeal is dismissed he would proceed under sections 41 and 42 of the Leadership Code seeking an order for dismissal of each of the appellants at that time from office.

The bribery appeal case was dismissed.

The Public Prosecutor then invoked the Leadership Code charges and this led to the Supreme Court’s decision in December 2015 on the 10-year ban.

The appeal by Jimmy and Yatan on the 10-year ban was dismissed on Friday.

• Vanuatu court upholds ban on former MPs

The owner and managing director of Rabaul Shipping will stand trial at the Kokopo National Court this week — four years after a Rabaul inter-island ferry sank off the Papua New Guinea coast killing almost 200 passengers.

Rabaul Shipping owner Peter Sharp and three other employees will stand trial on 171 counts of manslaughter and one count each for sending an unworthy vessel out to sea in 2012.

A Commission of Inquiry later found that the ship was grossly overloaded, unsafe and should never have been allowed to operate on its final voyage.

The sinking of the MV Rabaul Queen on February 2, 2012, killed at least 171 people which, included children and students who were on their way to start their academic year.

The trial is expected to last about two weeks.

• The Rabaul Queen disaster

Former Fiji Police Force chief of intelligence and investigations Henry Brown says he has no confidence in Commissioner of Police Brigadier-General Sitiveni Qiliho.

Brown, who is in Australia, emailed The Fiji Times about his resignation from the Fiji Police Force in January this year. He had been sent on leave by Commissioner Brig-Gen Qiliho a month earlier, who had said Brown was under investigation.

Brown said the accusations levelled against him were baseless and the decision by the Director of Public Prosecutions, Christopher Pryde, not to lay any charges against him was because there was insufficient evidence.

“The Office of the DPP has found what was obvious from the beginning, especially allegations plucked out of thin air. Until today, I am not aware as to who is making the allegation,” he said.

Brown said he had seen no documents or statements about the allegations against him, even though the whole police force knew his email address.

“I did not agree to be sent on leave, because leave is earned and not for internal or any sort of investigations. I was forced to choose leave or interdiction (half pay).

‘Trumped up investigation’
“My leave allowed me the freedom of travel and not to sit and wait for the outcome of a trumped up investigation, investigators with serious integrity (and ethics) issues,” Brown said.

Brown said he had served Fiji faithfully and was a qualified executive member of the force with 31 years of experience, and should have been treated as such.

“The simple rule of an internal allegation is to give the implicated officer a chance to respond before any decision is made. Unfortunately I was not given the opportunity at all.

“I also lost faith in the leadership of the organisation – the whole charade reeked of a witchhunt for reasons best known to Police Commissioner Brigadier-General Sitiveni Qiliho.”

Brown said the approval for his resignation was emailed by a junior officer and was accepted but Brig-Gen Qiliho kept saying in the local media he was waiting for Brown to return.

“I had no confidence in Brig-Gen Qiliho when he stated in the media that he was personally overseeing the investigations.

“I have no idea what Brig-Gen Qiliho is saying that there are some internal issues left after the DPP’s release.

‘Internal issues’
“There are no internal issues after the approval of resignation. He needs to get conversant with the force’s policies.”

In response, Brig-Gen Qiliho said he had nothing to do with the correspondence between Brown and The Fiji Times.

He said there was nothing between him and Brown and would not comment further.

Talebula Kate is a Fiji Times reporter.

• ‘Hounded out’ – FijiLeaks report

When officiating the oath of a new Supreme Court judge this week, President Baldwin Lonsdale took the opportunity to thank Chief Justice Vincent Lunabek for services rendered to the nation in the 2015 judicial year.

“2015 was a challenging year for Vanuatu [and] we have witnessed that justice system is alive and is strong,” said the Head of State.

“We continue to encourage that justice always prevails in our nation, the Republic of Vanuatu.”

President Lonsdale was referring to last year’s history-making bribery case which landed 14 MPs in jail.

Four of the leaders jailed were State ministers.

Chief justice’s pledge
The case gained national, regional and international attention for Vanuatu’s judiciary.

With the appointment of another judge, Lonsdale said he looks forward to the continuous support and cooperation in upholding the nation’s justice system.

In response, Chief Justice Lunabek thanked the President on behalf of the judiciary for the kind and encouraging words to the judges and also to the system of justice.

“I stand before you today on behalf of the judiciary to let you know that we can do what we can do, and whatever we can do we’ll try our best to do it better,” Lunabek assured the President.

Thompson Marango is a reporter with the Vanuatu Daily Post.

In April 2014, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, a tiny island country part of Micronesia, filed groundbreaking lawsuits to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) against the world’s nine nuclear-armed countries.

Now, almost two years later, the ICJ has heard preliminary oral arguments in three of the cases.

Between 1946 and 1958, 67 nuclear tests were conducted by the US in the Marshalls, making it one of the most contaminated places in the world. With a population of less than 70,000, the Islanders suffered greatly from the impact of radiation; the land and sea poisoned as well.

In 1985, the Greenpeace ship Rainbow Warrior helped to relocate the residents of one of the most severely impacted islands, Rongelap, after it became clear that high levels of radioactive contamination made most of the island unfit for habitation.

Between 7-16 March 2016, the ICJ’s panel of 16 judges heard oral arguments by the Marshall Islands and three respondent nations – the United Kingdom, India and Pakistan.

Tony de Brum, Co-Agent of the Marshall Islands and former Foreign Minister, reminded the court why the Marshall Islands, a small nation with limited resources that is seriously threatened by climate change, would bring these lawsuits against some of the world’s most militarily powerful nations.

During the second day of the hearings, he recalled one occasion in 1954 of the testing of a thermonuclear bomb that was 1,000 times the strength of the Hiroshima bomb. When the explosion occurred, it began to rain radioactive fallout at Rongelap.

Within hours, the atoll was covered with a fine, white, powder-like substance.

Radioactive fallout
“No one knew it was radioactive fallout,” said de Brum. “The children thought it was snow. And the children played in the snow. And they ate it.”

The other six nuclear-armed nations – the United States, Russia, France, China, Israel and North Korea – do not accept the compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ and therefore, would not appear before the Court.

The Marshall Islands contends that the UK, India and Pakistan are in breach of existing international law, which requires good faith negotiations for an end to the nuclear arms race and nuclear disarmament.

The court is expected to deliver its decision in approximately six months from now. Greenpeace will continue to stand with the people of the Marshall Islands in their fight to rid the world of nuclear weapons.

To read more about the hearings just concluded at the ICJ, advocates at the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation have been writing daily summaries here. Asia Pacific readers can also access to all relevant court documents at the ICJ website for the cases against the UK, India and Pakistan.

Jen Maman is the senior peace adviser at Greenpeace International.

Nuclear Zero petition at www.nuclearzero.org.

Eyes of Fire, a book about the Rongelap voyage and bombing of the Rainbow Warrior

Eyes of Fire: 30 Years On microsite – video interviews, articles and photo galleries.