Journalists in Papua New Guinea are likely to face legal threats as powerful individuals and companies use court actions to silence public interest reporting, warns Media Council of PNG president Neville Choi.

As co-chair of the second Community Coalition Against Corruption (CCAC) National Meeting, he said lawfare was likely because Parliament had passed no laws to protect reporters and individuals from such tactics.

Choi said journalists were being left unprotected against Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation (SLAPPs) — legal actions used by powerful individuals or corporations to silence criticism and reporting.

• READ MORE:The Media Council of PNG

“In Papua New Guinea right now, we don’t have any law to stop SLAPPs,” Choi said.

“Big corporations or organisations with more money can use lawsuits to silence people, civil society and the media. That’s the reality.”

SLAPPs are lawsuits filed not to win on merit, but to drain resources, silence critics, and stop public debate.

In some other countries, anti-SLAPP laws exist to protect journalists and whistleblowers. But in PNG, no such legal shield exists.

Legal pressure for speaking out
“We’ve seen it happen,” Choi added, referring to ACTNOW PNG’s Eddie Tanago, a civil society advocate who has faced legal pressure for speaking out.

“He’s experienced it. And we know it can happen to journalists too.”

Despite increasing threats, journalists do not have access to legal defence funds or institutional protection.

Choi confirmed that there was no system in place to defend reporters who were hit with defamation lawsuits or other forms of legal retaliation.

“Our advice to journalists is simple. Do your job well. The truth is the only protection we have,” he said.

“If you stick to facts, follow professional ethics and report responsibly, you reduce your risk. But if you make a mistake, you leave yourself open to lawsuits.”

The Media Council, in partnership with Transparency International under the CCAC, are discussing the idea of drafting an anti-SLAPP law but no formal proposal has been put forward yet.

Republished from the PNG Post-Courier with permission.

In the year marking 40 years since the bombing of the Rainbow Warrior by French secret agents and 71 years since the most powerful nuclear weapons tested by the United States, Greenpeace is calling on Washington to comply with demands by the Marshall Islands for nuclear justice.

“The Marshall Islands bears the deepest scars of a dark legacy — nuclear contamination, forced displacement, and premeditated human experimentation at the hands of the US government,” said Greenpeace spokesperson Shiva Gounden.

To mark the Marshall Islands’ Remembrance Day today, the Greenpeace flagship Rainbow Warrior is flying the republic’s flag at halfmast in solidarity with those who lost their lives and are suffering ongoing trauma as a result of US nuclear weapons testing in the Pacific.

• READ MORE: Nuclear justice for the Marshall Islands — a strategy for coordinated action
• UN rights council examines nuclear legacy consequences in the Marshall Islands
• Eyes of Fire – the Last Voyage of the Rainbow Warrior archive (Little Island Press)

On 1 March 1954, the Castle Bravo nuclear bomb was detonated on Bikini Atoll with a blast 1000 times more powerful than the Hiroshima bomb.

On Rongelap Atoll, 150 km away, radioactive fallout rained onto the inhabited island, with children mistaking it as snow.

The Rainbow Warrior is sailing to the Marshall Islands where a mission led by Greenpeace will conduct independent scientific research across the country, the results of which will eventually be given to the National Nuclear Commission to support the Marshall Islands government’s ongoing legal proceedings with the US and at the UN.

The voyage also marks 40 years since Greenpeace’s original Rainbow Warrior evacuated the people of Rongelap after toxic nuclear fallout rendered their ancestral land uninhabitable.

Still enduring fallout
Marshall Islands communities still endure the physical, economic, and cultural fallout of the nuclear tests — compensation from the US has fallen far short of expectations of the islanders who are yet to receive an apology.

And the accelerating impacts of the climate crisis threaten further displacement of communities.

Former Marshall Islands Foreign Minister Tony deBrum’s “nuclear justice” speech as Right Livelihood Award Winner in 2009. Video: Voices Rising

“To this day, Marshall Islanders continue to grapple with this injustice while standing on the frontlines of the climate crisis — facing yet another wave of displacement and devastation for a catastrophe they did not create,” Gounden said.

“But the Marshallese people and their government are not just survivors — they are warriors for justice, among the most powerful voices demanding bold action, accountability, and reparations on the global stage.

“Those who have inflicted unimaginable harm on the Marshallese must be held to account and made to pay for the devastation they caused.

“Greenpeace stands unwaveringly beside Marshallese communities in their fight for justice. Jimwe im Maron.”

Ariana Tibon Kilma, chair of the Marshall Islands National Nuclear Commission, said that the immediate effects of the Bravo bomb on March 1 were “harrowing”.

“Hours after exposure, many people fell ill — skin peeling off, burning sensation in their eyes, their stomachs were churning in pain. Mothers watched as their children’s hair fell to the ground and blisters devoured their bodies overnight,” she said.

“Without their consent, the United States government enrolled them as ‘test subjects’ in a top secret medical study on the effects of radiation on human beings — a study that continued for 40 years.

“Today on Remembrance Day the trauma of Bravo continues for the remaining survivors and their descendents — this is a legacy not only of suffering, loss, and frustration, but also of strength, unity, and unwavering commitment to justice, truth and accountability.”

The new Rainbow Warrior will arrive in the Marshall Islands early this month.

Alongside the government of the Marshall Islands, Greenpeace will lead an independent scientific mission into the ongoing impacts of the US weapons testing programme.

Travelling across the country, Greenpeace will reaffirm its solidarity with the Marshallese people — now facing further harm and displacement from the climate crisis, and the emerging threat of deep sea mining in the Pacific.

Author David Robie’s new Rainbow Warrior book Eyes Of Fire is due to be published in July 2025.

COMMENTARY: By Bernard Keane

Two moments stand out so far from the Federal Court hearings relating to Antoinette Lattouf’s sacking by the ABC, insofar as they demonstrate how power works in Australia — and especially in Australia’s media.

The first is how the ABC’s senior management abandoned due process in the face of a sustained lobbying effort by a pro-Israel group to have Lattouf taken off air, under the confected basis she was “antisemitic”.

Managing director David Anderson admitted in court that there was a “step missing” in the process that led to her sacking — in particular, a failure to consult with the ABC’s HR area, and a failure to discuss the attacks on Lattouf with Lattouf herself, before kicking her out.

• READ MORE: Legacy media outlets also stand in dock over Gaza: How RNZ, ABC and other Western media failed to challenge Israeli war narratives – Pacific Journalism Review
• Pressure from ‘higher up’ at ABC to sack Antoinette Lattouf from very first day on air, court hears

To this, it might be added, was acting editorial director Simon Melkman’s advice to management that Lattouf had not breached any editorial policies.

Anderson bizarrely singled out Lattouf’s authorship, alongside Cameron Wilson, of a Crikey article questioning the narrative that pro-Palestinian protesters had chanted “gas the Jews”, as basis for his concerns about her, only for one of his executives to point out the article was “balanced and journalistically sound“.

That is, by the ABC’s own admission, there was no basis to sack Lattouf and the sacking was conducted improperly. And yet, here we are, with the ABC tying itself in absurd knots — no such race as Lebanese, indeed — spending millions defending its inappropriate actions in response to a lobbying campaign.

The second moment that stands out is a decision by the court early in the trial to protect the identities of those calling for Lattouf’s sacking.

Abandoned due process
The campaign that the group rolled out prompted the ABC chair and managing director to immediately react — and the ABC to abandon due process and procedural fairness. Yet the court protects their identities.

The reasoning — that the identities behind the complaints should be protected for their safety — may or may not be based on reasonable fears, but it’s the second time that institutions have worked to protect people who planned to undermine the careers of people — specifically, women — who have dared to criticise Israel.

The first was when some members — a minority — of a WhatsApp group supposedly composed of pro-Israel “creatives” discussed how to wreck the careers of, inter alia, Clementine Ford and Lauren Dubois for their criticism of Israel.

The publishing of the identities of this group was held by both the media and the political class to be an outrageous, antisemitic act of “doxxing”, and the federal government rushed through laws to make such publications illegal.

No mention of making the act of trying to destroy people’s careers because they hold different political views — or, cancel culture, as the right likes to call it — illegal.

Whether it’s courts, politicians or the media, it seems that the dice are always loaded in favour of those wanting to crush criticism of Israel, while its victims are left to fend for themselves.

Human rights lawyer and fighter against antisemitism Sarah Schwartz has been repeatedly threatened with (entirely vexatious) lawsuits by Israel supporters for her criticism of Israel, and her discussion of the exploitation of Australian Jews by Peter Dutton.

Opinion | Australian democracy and the rule of law is being damaged by the media’s willingness to abandon due process and attack those who criticise Israel, writes @bernardkeane.

Read it here: https://t.co/gpNuppn31l pic.twitter.com/AyxKdyVMG4

— Crikey (@crikey_news) February 11, 2025

Targeted by another News Corp smear campaign
She’s been targeted by yet another News Corp smear campaign, based on nothing more than a wilfully misinterpreted slide. She has no government or court rushing to protect her.

Meanwhile, Peter Lalor, one of Australia’s finest sports journalists (and I write as someone who can’t abide most sports journalism) lost his job with SEN because he, too, dared to criticise Israel and call out the Palestinian genocide. No-one’s rushing to his aide, either.

No powerful institutions are weighing in to safeguard his privacy, or protect him from the consequences of his opinions.

The individual cases add up to a pattern: Australian institutions, and especially its major media institutions, will punish you for criticising Israel.

Pro-Israel groups will demand you be sacked, they will call for your career to be destroyed. Those groups will be protected.

Media companies will ride roughshod over basic rights and due process to comply with their demands. You will be smeared and publicly vilified on completely spurious bases. Politicians will join in, as Jason Clare did with the campaign against Schwartz and as Chris Minns is doing in NSW, imposing hate speech laws that even Christian groups think are a bad idea.

Australian journalist Antoinette Lattouf was sacked from her job at ABC because she shared an Instagram post from @hrw in which the NGS accused Israel of using starvation as a weapon of war. She is now taking the broadcaster to court. pic.twitter.com/jRmQW2AAl3

— Saul Staniforth (@SaulStaniforth) February 11, 2025

Damaging the fabric of democracy
This is how the campaign to legitimise the Palestinian genocide and destroy critics of the Netanyahu government has damaged the fabric of Australia’s democracy and the rule of law.

The basic rights and protections that Australians should have under a legal system devoted to preventing discrimination can be stripped away in a moment, while those engaged in destroying people’s careers and livelihoods are protected.

Ill-advised laws are rushed in to stifle freedom of speech. Australian Jews are stereotyped as a politically convenient monolith aligned with the Israeli government.

The experience of Palestinians themselves, and of Arab communities in Australia, is minimised and erased. And the media are the worst perpetrators of all.

Bernard Keane is Crikey’s politics editor. Before that he was Crikey’s Canberra press gallery correspondent, covering politics, national security and economics. First published by Crikey.

Papua New Guinea’s civic space has been rated as “obstructed” by the Civicus Monitor and the country has been criticised for pushing forward with a controversial media law in spite of strong opposition.

Among concerns previously documented by the civil rights watchdog are harassment and threats against human rights defenders, particularly those working on land and environmental rights, use of the cybercrime law to criminalise online expression, intimidation and restrictions against journalists, and excessive force during protests.

In recent months, the authorities have used the cybercrime law to target a human rights defender for raising questions online on forest enforcement, while a journalist and gender-based violence survivor is also facing charges under the law, said the Civicus Monitor in its latest report.

• READ MORE: Other PNG media freedom reports

The court halted a logging company’s lawsuit against a civil society group while the government is pushing forward with the controversial National Media Development law.

Human rights defender charged under cybercrime law
On 9 December 2024, human rights defender and ACT NOW! campaign manager Eddie Tanago was arrested and charged by police under section 21(2) of the Cybercrime Act 2016 for allegedly publishing defamatory remarks on social media about the managing director of the PNG Forest Authority.

Tanago was taken to the Boroko Police Station Holding cell and released on bail the same afternoon. If convicted he could face a maximum sentence of 15 years’ imprisonment.

ACT NOW is a prominent human rights organisation seeking to halt illegal logging and related human rights violations in Papua New Guinea (PNG).

According to reports, ACT NOW had reshared a Facebook post from a radio station advertising an interview with PNG Forest Authority (PNGFA) staff members, which included a photo of the managing director.

The repost included a comment raising questions about PNGFA forest enforcement.

Following Tanago’s arrest, ACT NOW said: “it believes that the arrest and charging of Tanago is a massive overreach and is a blatant and unwarranted attempt to intimidate and silence public debate on a critical issue of national and international importance.”

It added that “there was nothing defamatory in the social media post it shared and there is nothing remotely criminal in republishing a poster which includes the image of a public figure which can be found all over the internet.”

On 24 January 2025, when Tanago appeared at the Waigani Committal Court, he was instead charged under section 15, subparagraph (b) of the Cybercrime Act for “identity theft”. The next hearing has been scheduled for February 25.

The 2016 Cybercrime Act has been used to silence criticism and creates a chilling effect, said Civicus Monitor.

The law has been criticised by the opposition, journalists and activists for its impact on freedom of expression and political discourse.

JOURNO ARRAIGNED ON CYBER HARASSMENT
Journalist Hennah Joku appeared before Magistrate Paul Nii at the Waigani Committal Court on charges of cyber defamation following a Facebook post made on 4th September 2024.
Read more:https://t.co/LEIDEcTZv6#EMTVNews #EMTVOnline pic.twitter.com/zHqm353Cst

— EMTV (@EMTVOnline) December 5, 2024

Journalist and gender activist charged with defamation
Journalist and gender activist Hennah Joku was detained and charged under the Cybercrime Act on 23 November 2024, following defamation complaints filed by her former partner Robert Agen.

Joku was charged with two counts of breaching the Cybercrimes Act 2016 and detained in Boroko Prison. She was freed on the same day after bail was posted.

Joku, a survivor of a 2018 assault by Agen, had documented and shared her six-year journey through the PNG justice system, which had resulted in his conviction and jailing in 2023.

On 2 September 2024, the PNG Supreme Court overturned two of three criminal convictions, and Agen was released from prison.

On 4 and 15 September 2024, Joku shared her reactions with more than 9000 followers on her Meta social media account. Those two posts, one of which featured the injuries suffered from her 2018 assault, now form the basis for the current defamation charges against her.

Section 21(2) of the Cybercrimes Act 2016, which has an electronic defamation clause, carries a maximum penalty of up to 25 years’ imprisonment or a fine of up to one million kina (NZ$442,000).

The Pacific Freedom Forum (PFF) expressed “grave concerns” over the charges, saying: “We encourage the government and judiciary to review the use of defamation legislation to silence and gag the universal right to freedom of speech.

“Citizens must be informed. They must be protected.”

Court stays logging company lawsuit against civil society group
In January 2025, an injunction issued against community advocacy group ACT NOW! to prevent publication of reports on illegal logging has been stayed by the National Court.

In July 2024, two Malaysian owned logging companies obtained an order from the District Court in Vanimo preventing ACT NOW! from issuing publications about their activities and from contacting their clients and service providers.

That order has now been effectively lifted after the National Court agreed to stay the whole District court proceedings while it considers an application from ACT NOW! to have the case permanently stayed and transferred to the National Court.

ACT NOW! said the action by Global Elite Limited and Wewak Agriculture Development Limited, which are part of the Giant Kingdom group, is an example of Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation (SLAPP).

“SLAPPs are illegitimate and abusive lawsuits designed to intimidate, harass and silence legitimate criticism and close down public scrutiny of the logging industry,” said Civicus Monitor.

SLAPP lawsuits have been outlawed in many countries and lawyers involved in supporting them can be sanctioned, but those protections do not yet exist in PNG.

The District Court action is not the first time the Malaysian-owned Giant Kingdom group has tried to use the legal system in an attempt to silence ACT NOW!

In March 2024, the court rejected a similar SLAPP style application by the Global Elite for an injunction against ACT NOW! As a result, the company discontinued its legal action and the court ordered it to pay ACT NOW!’s legal costs.

Government pushes forward with controversial media legislation
The government is reportedly ready to pass legislation to regulate its media, which journalism advocates have said could have serious implications for democracy and freedom of speech in the country.

National Broadcasting Corporation (NBC) of PNG reported in January 2025 that the policy has received the “green light” from cabinet to be presented in Parliament.

The state broadcaster reported that Communications Minister Timothy Masiu said: “This policy will address the ongoing concerns about sensationalism, ethical standards, and the portrayal of violence in the media.”

In July 2024, it was reported that the proposed media policy was now in its fifth draft but it is unclear if this version has been updated.

As previously documented, journalists have raised concerns that the media development policy could lead to more government control over the country’s relatively free media.

The bill includes sections that give the government the “power to investigate complaints against media outlets, issue guidelines for ethical reporting, and enforce sanctions or penalties for violations of professional standards”.

There are also concerns that the law will punish journalists who create content that is against the country’s development objectives.

Organisations such as Transparency International PNG, Media Council of PNG, Pacific Freedom Forum, and Pacific Media Watch/Asia Pacific Media Network among others, have asked for the policy to be dropped.

The press freedom ranking for PNG dropped from 59th place to 91st in the most recent index published by Reporters without Borders (RSF) in May 2024.

Civicus Monitor.

Among his first official acts on returning to the White House, President Donald Trump issued an executive order “restoring freedom of speech and ending federal censorship”.

Implicit in this vaguely written document: the United States is done fighting mis- and disinformation online, reports the Paris-based global media watchdog Reporters Without Borders (RSF).

Meanwhile, far from living up to the letter or spirit of his own order, Trump is fighting battles against the American news media on multiple fronts and has pardoned at least 13 individuals convicted or charged for attacking journalists in the 6 January 2021 insurrection.

• READ MORE: Other Donald Trump media freedom reports

An RSF statement strongly refutes Trump’s “distorted vision of free speech, which is inherently detrimental to press freedom”.

Trump has long been one of social media’s most prevalent spreaders of false information, and his executive order, “Restoring Freedom of Speech and Ending Federal Censorship,” is the latest in a series of victories for the propagators of disinformation online.

Bowing to pressure from Trump, Mark Zuckerberg, whose Meta platforms are already hostile to journalism, did away with fact-checking on Facebook, which the tech mogul falsely equated to censorship while throwing fact-checking journalists under the bus.

Trump ally Elon Musk also dismantled the meagre trust and safety safeguards in place when he took over Twitter and proceeded to arbitrarily ban journalists who were critical of him from the site.

‘Free speech’ isn’t ‘free of facts’
“Free speech doesn’t mean public discourse has to be free of facts. Donald Trump and his Big Tech cronies like Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg are dismantling what few guardrails the internet had to protect the integrity of information,” said RSF’s USA executive director Clayton Weimers.

“We cannot ignore the irony of Trump appointing himself the chief crusader for ‘free speech’ while he continues to personally attack press freedom — a pillar of the First Amendment — and has vowed to weaponise the federal government against expression he doesn’t like.

“If Trump means what he says in his own executive order, he could start by dropping his lawsuits against news organisations.”

Trump recently settled a lawsuit out of court with ABC News parent company Disney, but is still suing the Des Moines Register and its parent company Gannett for publishing a poll unfavourable to his campaign, and the Pulitzer Center board for awarding coverage of his 2016 campaign’s alleged ties with Russia.

Trump should immediately drop both lawsuits and refrain from launching others while in office.

After a campaign where he attacked the press on a daily basis, Trump has continued to berate the media and dismissed its legitimacy to critique him.

During a press conference the day after he took office, Trump reproached NBC reporter Peter Alexander for questions about Trump’s blanket pardons of the January 6th riot participants, saying, “Just look at the numbers on the election.

“We won this election in a landslide, because the American public is tired of people like you that are just one-sided, horrible people, in terms of crime.”

An incoherent press freedom policy
The executive order also flies in the face of his violent rhetoric against journalists.

The order asserts that during the Biden administration, “the Federal government infringed on the constitutionally protected speech rights of American citizens across the United States in a manner that advanced the government’s preferred narrative about significant matters of public debate.”

It goes on to state, “It is the policy of the United States to ensure that no Federal Government officer, employee, or agent engages in or facilitates any conduct that would unconstitutionally abridge the free speech of any American citizen.”

This stated policy, laudable in a vacuum, even if made redundant by the First Amendment, is rendered meaningless by Trump’s explicit threats to weaponise the government against the media, which have recently included threats to revoke broadcast licenses in political retaliation, investigate news organizations that criticise him, and jail journalists who refuse to expose confidential sources.

Instead, the policy appears designed to amplify disinformation, which benefits a President of the United States who has proven willing to spread disinformation that furthered his political interests on matters small and large.

“If Trump is serious about his stated commitment to free speech, RSF suggests he begin by ensuring his own actions serve to protect the free press, rather than censoring or punishing media outlets,” the watchdog said.

“The United States has seen a steady decline in its press freedom ranking in RSF’s World Press Freedom Index over the past decade to a current ranking of 55th out of 180 countries, with presidents from both parties presiding over this backslide.

“While Trump is not entirely responsible for the present situation, his frequent attacks on the news media have no doubt contributed to the decline in trust in the media, which has been driven partly by partisan attitudes towards journalism.

“Trump’s violent rhetoric can also contribute to real-life violence — assaults on journalists nearly doubled in 2024, when his campaign was at its apex, compared to 2023.”

Pacific Media Watch collaborates with RSF.

The Palau Media Council has condemned a political lawsuit against the publisher of the Island Times as an “assault on press freedom” with the Pacific country facing an election on Tuesday.

In a statement yesterday, the council added that the lawsuit, filed by Surangel and Sons Co. against Times publisher Leilani Reklai over her newspaper’s coverage of tax-related documents that surfaced on social media, was an attempt to undermine the accountability that was vital to democracy.

The statement also said the lawsuit raised “critical concerns about citizens’ access to information and freedom of the press.

• READ MORE: Palau newspaper sued by president’s family company ahead of general election
• Media freedom at stake? Palau newspaper faces defamation lawsuit
• Regional Asia Pacific media freedoms

Palau recently topped the inaugural Pacific Media Freedom Index for press freedom.

“This lawsuit, combined with government’s statements endorsing that Island Times reported mis-information on its coverage of the tax related document and the decision to ban Island Times from Surangel and Sons [distribution] outlets, raises critical concerns about citizens’ access to information and the freedom of the press — both of which are cornerstones of a democratic society,” the statement said.

“The council sees this legal action as an assault on press freedom and an attempt to undermine the accountability that is vital to democracy.”

The statement said that Reklai, one of Palau’s senior journalists, was being targeted simply for reporting on documents that were already in the public domain.

“She did not originate the information but responsibly conveyed what these documents suggested, raising questions about the current administration’s narrative on corporate tax contributions,” the council said.

‘Journalistic duty’
“Reporting on such information is a journalistic duty to ensure transparency in tax policies and government incentives impacting the private sector.

“The Island Times, by publishing these documents, has provided a platform for clarifying public understanding of the new PGST tax law’s impact on major corporations and the actual tax contributions of Surangel and Sons.

“These issues are clearly within the public’s right to know, and the council emphasises that media plays a crucial role in reporting such findings and promoting informed debate.

The council said it stood in solidarity with Reklai and all journalists who strived to find and uphold the truth.

“In a healthy democracy, a free and open press is essential for informed citizens and responsible governance.”

Palau’s largest newspaper is being sued for defamation by the company of President Surangel Whipps Jr’s father, just days ahead of general elections in the Pacific nation.

Surangel and Sons alleges “negligence and defamation” by the Island Times and its editor Leilani Reklai for an article published on Tuesday with “false and unsubstantiated allegations,” owner Surangel Whipps Sr said in a press release on Thursday.

Reklai has rejected the company’s allegations and said the “lawsuit is trying to control how media here in Palau tells a story”, a news article about the case in the Island Times reported on Friday.

• READ MORE: Media freedom at stake? Palau newspaper faces defamation lawsuit
• Regional Asia Pacific media freedoms

“I feel like we are being intimidated, we are being forced to speak a certain narrative rather than present diverse community perspectives,” said Reklai, who is also a stringer for BenarNews.

The Micronesian nation of 17,000 people — 650 km north of Papua New Guinea — goes to the polls on November 5. Whipps Jr’s rival is his brother-in-law Tommy Remengesau Jr, who was president from 2001 to 2009 and 2013 to 2021.

The controversy comes after Palau was top of the inaugural 2023 Pacific Media Freedom Index of 14 island countries that highlighted the region’s media facing significant political and economic pressures, bribes and corruption, as well as self-censorship.

Island Times reported on Friday the suit is seeking compensation and punitive damages and that the company asserts the “monetary awards should be substantial enough to prevent similar conduct from the newspaper and Reklai in future”.

Surangel and Sons financial details — leaked from the country’s tax office — were posted on social media last weekend, prompting heated online debate over how much it paid.

A new corporate and goods and services tax system introduced by Whipps Jr’s government is currently being rolled out in Palau and its merits have been a focus of election campaigning.

The company in a statement said its “privacy rights had been violated,” the tax details were obtained illegally, posted online without consent, and some of the figures had been altered.

Motivation ‘confusing voters’
“The motivation behind the circulation of this document is clearly for misinformation and disinformation to confuse voters. In the end Surangel and Sons is not running for office. Unfortunately, it has been victimised by this smear campaign,” the company posted on social media.

Island Times in a 225-word, front-page story headlined “Surangel & Sons condemns tax report leak as privacy violation” reported the company’s statement on Tuesday. It also quoted financial details from the leaked documents and accompanying commentary.

Whipps Jr. in a press conference on Wednesday accused the Island Times of publishing disinformation.

“Island Times continues to print political propaganda, it’s not accurate,” Whipps Jr said, calling for a correction to be published.

The lawsuit against the paper and its editor was served the next day.

Whipps Jr’s spokesperson told BenarNews any questions related to the lawsuit should be directed to the parties involved.

Surangel and Sons was founded in 1980 by Whipps Sr, who also served as Palau’s president briefly in 2005 and for two years from 2007.

Business ‘offers everything’
The privately-owned business “offers everything from housing design and automotive repair to equipment rentals, groceries, and scuba gear” through its import, sales, construction and travel arms, the company’s website says.

Previously as CEO, Whipps Jr transformed the company from a family store to one of Palau’s largest and most diversified businesses, employing more than 700 people.

His LinkedIn profile states he finished as CEO in January 2021, after 28 years in the position and in the month he became president. His spokesperson did not respond to questions from BenarNews about if he still retains any direct financial or other links to the company.

Surangel and Sons said the revelation of sensitive business information threatens their competitive advantage and puts jobs at risk.

Palau’s Minister of Finance Kaleb Udui Jr told the president’s press conference on Wednesday an investigation was underway, a special prosecutor would be appointed and apologized for the leak to the company.

“I would hope the media would make extra effort to help educate the public and discourage misinformation and breaches of privacy of the tax office and any other government office,” Udui said, confirming the tax documents had been altered before being posted on social media.

He said tax office staff have previously been warned about leaks and ensuring data confidentiality, as breaches negatively impact the confidence of foreign investors in Palau.

Explanation rather than leak
Whipps Jr added that the newspaper should have explained the tax system instead of reporting the leaked information.

He also accused Island Times of failure to disclose a paid advertisement in this week’s edition of the paper for his political opponent.

“I’m disappointed in the Island Times, because there was an article that was not an article, a paid advertisement,” Whipps Jr said about a colourful blue and yellow election campaign graphic.

Island Times told BenarNews it was not usual practice to put “Paid Advertisement” on advertisements but it would review its policy for political campaign material.

Reklai fears the lawsuit could have serious consequences for the media in Palau and bankrupt Island Times, the paper reported.

“If I don’t stand up to this, it sends a signal to all journalists that they risk facing claims for damages for powerful companies and government officials while carrying out their work,” she said.

Palau has two newspapers and four radio stations and enshrined in its constitution are protections for journalists, including a guarantee they cannot be jailed for refusing to disclose sources.

Surangel and Sons said they would no longer sell Island Times through their outlets.

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

An initial hearing of a class action against mining giant Rio Tinto over the toxic legacy of the Panguna copper mine on the autonomous island of Bougainville has been held in Papua New Guinea.

The lawsuit against Rio Tinto and its subsidiary Bougainville Copper Limited (BCL) is seeking compensation, expected to be in the billions of dollars, for what plaintiffs allege is historic mismanagement of the massive open copper-and-gold mine between 1972 and 1989.

More than 5000 claimants backed by anonymous investors are seeking damages for the destruction that sparked a 10-year-long civil war.

• READ MORE: Other Bougainville and independence reports

The Panguna mine closed in 1989 after anger about pollution and the unequal distribution of profits sparked a landowner rebellion. As many as 20,000 people — or 10 percent of Bougainville’s population — are estimated to have died in the violence that followed between pro-inependence rebels and PNG.

Although a peace process was brokered in 2001 with New Zealand support, deep political divisions remain and there has never been remediation for Panguna’s environmental and psychological scars.

The initial hearing for the lawsuit took place on Wednesday, a day ahead of schedule, at the National Court in Port Moresby, said Matthew Mennilli, a partner at Sydney-based Morris Mennilli.

Mennilli, who is from one of two law firms acting on behalf of the plaintiffs, said he was unable to provide further details as court orders had not yet been formally entered.

A defence submitted
Rio Tinto did not respond to specific questions regarding this week’s hearing, but said in a statement on September 23 it had submitted a defence and would strongly defend its position in the case.

The lawsuit is made up by the majority of villagers in the affected area of Bougainville, an autonomous province within PNG, situated some 800km east of the capital Port Moresby.

At least 71 local clan leaders support the claim, with the lead claimant named as former senior Bougainville political leader and chief of the Basking Taingku clan Martin Miriori.

The lawsuit is being bankrolled by Panguna Mine Action, a limited liability company that stands to reap between 20-40 percent of any payout depending on how long the case takes, according to litigation funding documents cited by the Organised Crime and Corruption Reporting Project.

While the lawsuit has support from a large number of local villagers, some observers fear it could upset social cohesion on Bougainville and potentially derail another long-standing remediation effort.

The class action is running in parallel with an independent assessment of the mine’s legacy, supported by human rights groups and the Autonomous Bougainville Government (ABG), and funded by Rio Tinto.

Rio Tinto agreed in 2021 to take part in the Panguna Mine Legacy Impact Assessment after the Melbourne-based Human Rights Law Centre filed a complaint with the Australian government, on behalf of Bougainville residents.

Legacy of destruction
The group said the Anglo-Australian mining giant has failed to address Panguna’s legacy of destruction, including the alleged dumping of more than a billion tonnes of mine waste into rivers that continues to affect health, the environment and livelihoods.

The assessment, which is being done by environmental consulting firm Tetra Tech Coffey, includes extensive consultation with local communities and the first phase of the evaluation is expected to be delivered next month.

ABG President Ishmael Toroama has called the Rio Tinto class action the highest form of treason and an obstacle to the government’s economic independence agenda.

“This class action is an attack on Bougainville’s hard-fought unity to date,” he said in May.

In February, the autonomous government granted Australian-listed Bougainville Copper a five-year exploration licence to revive the Panguna mine site.

The Bougainville government is hoping its reopening will fund independence. In a non-binding 2019 referendum — which was part of the 2001 peace agreement — 97.7 percent of the island’s inhabitants voted for independence.

PNG leaders resist independence
But PNG leaders have resisted the result, fearful that by granting independence it could encourage breakaway movements in other regions of the volatile Pacific island country.

Former New Zealand Governor-General Sir Jerry Mateparae was appointed last month as an independent moderator to help the two parties agree on terms of a parliamentary vote needed to ratify the referendum.

In response to the class action, Rio Tinto said last month its focus remained on “constructive engagement and meaningful action with local stakeholders” through the legacy assessment.

The company said it was “seeking to partner with key stakeholders, such as the ABG and BCL, to design and implement a remedy framework.”

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

About 4500 Bougainvillean residents now back a lawsuit against mining giant Rio Tinto.

This is an additional 1500 people from the autonomous Papua New Guinea region joining the action since it was filed in May this year.

Bougainville President Ishmael Toroama said the lawsuit was disappointing and was pursued by those people acting against Bougainville’s interests.

• READ MORE: Other Panguna mine reports

The government was not backing it in any way, shape or form, he said.

The claimants are seeking billions of dollars in compensation from Rio Tinto which operated the Panguna copper and gold mine in the 1970s and 1980s before it was forced to shut by civil war.

The mine was at the heart of that war which brought death and devastation to Bougainville over a 10-year period until 1997.

They say Rio Tinto, which was the majority shareholder in Bougainville Copper Ltd (BCL) at the time, is responsible for the large scale environmental and social harm that resulted from what was one of the biggest mines in the world.

A former senior Bougainville political leader, Martin Miriori, who is the lead claimant of the class action, said the “large increase in claimants demonstrates the strength of feeling among local people that Rio Tinto and BCL must make amends for decades of environmental devastation”.

He said “this issue will not go away, as the legal action has attracted strong support, and reminded the world of the destruction caused by the mine operator’s reckless actions.”

A first court hearing is set for Port Moresby on 10 October 2024.

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

Foreign Minister Winston Peters has “hung . . . out to dry” Fiji’s suspended New Zealand Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) who wrote to him seeking assistance, a former Fiji government advisor-cum-critic says.

On July 11, Christopher Pryde, who was stood down for alleged misconduct in April 2023, wrote to Peters seeking New Zealand government intervention after his salary was “unilaterally” cut off by the Fiji government midway into his seven-year employment contract.

“The sudden cessation of my salary at the eleventh hour whilst I am in the middle of instructing legal counsel in Fiji to defend myself against charges brought by the Fijian government is a denial of natural justice that has left me with little choice but to seek your assistance,” Pryde said in a five-page letter to the minister.

• READ MORE: Other Fiji lawsuit reports

A spokesperson from Peters’ office told RNZ Pacific today: “This is a matter between Mr Pryde and the government of Fiji. It is not a matter for the minister to comment on.”

However, according to the Fiji Sun, Peters — in an exclusive interview with the newspaper — said that “he was not happy” with the New Zealander’s “approach to seek assistance from him”.

“He (Pryde) wrote to everybody and sent me a copy,” he was quoted as saying in a frontpage news story with the headline ‘Winston slams Pryde’s email action for help’.

“He sent me a copy? He wrote me a letter and sent it to everyone else at the same time!. What do you think about somebody that wrote to you — asking for help and then sent it to everyone else at the same time? What would you think?,” the newspaper reported.

‘Bereft of principle’
The Deputy Prime Minsiter’s comments reported in the Fijian daily have been labelled by a former Fiji government communications advisor and Grubsheet blog publisher, Graham Davis, as “highhanded and bereft of principle”.

“Winston Peters has clearly hung Christopher Pryde out to dry,” Davis said.

“His dismissive attitude to suspended DPP Pryde now being unable to defend himself against a false charge of misbehaviour because his salary has been severed is . . . highhanded and bereft of principle.

“And it sends an ominous message to every New Zealander working in the Pacific or contemplating doing so that if they fall foul of their host governments, Winston [Peters] will cut them loose. They are on their own.”

Fiji Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka told local media that Pryde was entitled to receive all salaries until he was removed from office.

The Kiwi lawyer was suspended 15 months ago after he allegedly “spent about 30 to 45 minutes conversing alone” with former Attorney-General Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum at a public event hosted by the Japanese Embassy in the capital Suva.

In April last year, Rabuka said people in high office needed to be “very aware of who is watching what we do”.

‘Fraternising’ with person under investigation
“For the DPP [Pryde] to be seen to be fraternising with high profile person under investigation would not be the right thing for the DPP to [have] done.”

Pryde, who has held the top prosecutor’s role since 2011, warned other New Zealand citizens who have taken up positions in Fiji’s criminal justice system “may potentially be adversely impacted if the Fijian government is permitted to ignore due process and the rule of law”.

“The NZ government provides substantial aid to Fiji in support of the rule of law which is being undermined,” he wrote to Peters.

The Fiji Law Society and the New Zealand Law Society (NZLS) have expressed concerns on the issue.

NZLS president Frazer Barton has encouraged “respect for and compliance . .. of the rule of law”.

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

A Palestinian advocate has appealed to the New Zealand government to call for a permanent ceasefire in Gaza and to back the South African genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ).

“A sovereign state like New Zealand that has historically stood for what is morally correct must not bend to foreign pressure, and must reject policies aligned with the United Kingdom of Israel and the United States of Israel which blindly endorse and support the apartheid regime,” said Billy Hania of the Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa (PSNA).

He was speaking at the pro-Palestinian rally and march in Auckland Tāmaki Makaurau yesterday as the Gaza death toll rose above 25,000 dead, mostly women and children.

• READ MORE: ‘Criminal complaints’ filed against Israeli President Herzog in Switzerland
• War on Gaza: The US plan to revamp Palestinian Authority is doomed
• ‘Bombing all around us’ — Israeli assault hospital in Khan Younis

Belgium is among the latest of 61 countries — and the first European nation — to support the genocide case and a growing number of other lawsuits are also being brought against Israel.

Chile and Mexico have asked the International Criminal Court (ICC) to investigate crimes against civilians in the war and Indonesia has filed a new lawsuit in the ICJ against Israel for its illegal occupation of Palestinian territories.

Swiss prosecutors have also confirmed that a “crimes against humanity” case has been filed against Israeli President Isaac Herzog during his visit to the World Economic Forum in Davos last week. No further details were given.

“The Zionist project is failing in Palestine — the apartheid entity with 75 years of colonial terror has achieved nothing for the Jewish people, oppressing and killing Palestinians through a violent settler colonial approach,” Hania said.

“Mass killing of Palestinians will achieve nothing for the Jewish people. Without respect for Palestinian rights and respect for life in Palestine, there will be no peace period.”

‘One holocaust not enough?’
Constrasting the shrinking support for Israel with massive citizen protests “in their millions” taking place around the world, Hania criticised Germany’s intervention in the genocide case supporting Tel Aviv while also planning to provide 10,000 tank munitions to “the apartheid regime with which to massacre Palestinians — as if one holocaust was not enough”.

“We are calling on the New Zealand government to support the South African ICJ case in addition to supporting the recent Chile-Mexico ICC war crimes initiative. This initiative is technically important with Israel being a signatory to the ICC,” Hania said.

He also thanked Indonesia for its legal initiative.

“More than 100 days of targeting Palestinian civilians and civilian infrastructure to exterminate Palestinian life is committing genocide, the crime of all crimes and with total impunity,” Hania said.

“More than 60,000 tons of explosives dropped over Gaza in 100 days equals three nuclear bombs, more than the infamous nuclear tragedy on Japan that led to its immediate surrender. It’s fundamentally different for Gaza as surrendering does not exist in Palestine vocabulary.”

He said the more than 100 Israel hostages would remain in Gaza until the “thousands of Palestinian hostages are freed”.

“The Gaza siege must end, West Bank Israeli settler extremist violence must end, there must be respect for worshippers and Muslim religious sites attacks by Israeli extremists is well documented and must end.”

24 massacres cited
Hania stressed that the current war did not start on October 7 with the deadly Hamas resistance movement attack on southern Israel as claimed by the Israeli government.

He cited a list of 24 massacres of Palestinians by Zionist militia that began at Haifa in 1937 and Jerusalem the same year, including the Nakba – “the Catastrophe” — in 1948 when 750,000 Palestinians were forced out of their homes and lands with the destruction of towns and villages.

Hania also referred to a recent New York Times article that warned Israel was in a strategic bind over its failed military policies, saying Israel’s objectives were “mutually incompatible”.

“Israel’s limited progress in dismantling Hamas has raised doubts within the military’s high command about the near-term feasibility of achieving the country’s principal wartime objectives: eradicating Hamas and also liberating the Israeli hostages still in Gaza,” wrote the authors Ronen Bergman and Patrick Kingsley.

Israel had established control over a smaller part of Gaza at this stage of the war than originally envisaged in battle plans from the start of the invasion, which were reviewed by The Times.

Citing Dr Andreas Krieg, a war analyst at King’s College London, from the article, Hania quoted:

“It’s not an environment where you can free hostages.

“It is an unwinnable war.

“Most of the time when you are in an unwinnable war, you realise that at some point — and you withdraw.

“And they didn’t.”

Concerns over alleged political interference in the command and control of the Papua New Guinea Defence Force are among the grounds that will be pursued by the suspended Chief of Defence, Major-General Mark Goina, if the court grants him leave to appeal.

Goina seeks leave to review the decision of the National Executive Council (NEC) that suspended him from his substantive role as the major-gene­r­al of the PNGDF on August 17, 2023, and appointed Commodore Philip Polewara as acting commander of the PNGDF.

A Dunedin climate activist has been sentenced to 125 hours of community work after writing a fake email saying that a petroleum industry conference in Aotearoa New Zealand had been postponed.

Rosemary Anne Penwarden, 64, was found guilty of forgery and using a forged document by a jury in June.

In 2019, she wrote a phoney email telling delegates of the annual Petroleum Exploration and Production Association of New Zealand conference that it had been postponed due to the climate crisis, using the organisation’s letterhead and industry logos.

• READ MORE: Other climate protest reports

Judge Michael Turner told the Dunedin District Court on Monday that she did not appear to regret her actions and lacked insight into her behaviour.

“Penwarden must be deterred from behaving in an illegal way in the future,” he said.

Penwarden’s lawyer Ben Smith sought a discharge without conviction, saying she never thought it would be taken seriously and she was attempting to protest using satire.

Convicting Penwarden would create financial uncertainty by creating issues if she wanted to borrow money and could have a chilling effect on others who were planning to protest, he said.

She would do it again
Judge Turner denied that application, saying he did not believe it was an adequate consequence, especially after she told media following her trial that she had no regrets and she would do it again.

Her actions showed premeditation and a degree of skill to create a false email, use a conference document to find names, create a letter with a logo and send it out — first to media, and then to conference speakers and delegates, Judge Turner said.

He acknowledged her dedication to her community while sentencing her to 125 hours of community work, but said that she would be undertaking work for the New Zealand public this time.

Her supporters sang Te Aroha as she walked out of the courtroom.

Speaking outside the court, Penwarden said she respected the judge’s sentence and it was good news she did not have to go to prison.

Maximum up to 10 years
The maximum penalty for using a false document is 10 years’ imprisonment.

“I’m an ordinary grandmother and I think anyone who really cares and who really listens to the climate science understands what is coming down the line and it is bigger than one person writing a letter. It is bigger than one person doing community service,” Penwarden said.

She could still protest if she stayed within the law, she said.

“I would not incite anybody to break the law, and that’s part of my bail conditions anyway.”

Penwarden urged people not to vote for anyone pandering to climate change deniers.

“We’ve got work to do people.”

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

Suva lawyer Richard Naidu is a free man after the Suva High Court ruled this week that no conviction be recorded against him.

High Court judge Justice Daniel Goundar ruled on Tuesday that the charge of contempt scandalising the court against Naidu be dismissed.

He said summons to set aside the judgment that had found Naidu guilty in November last year was by consent and was dismissed as he did not have jurisdiction.

• READ MORE: Other Richard Naidu reports

Justice Gounder ordered the parties to bear their own costs.

While delivering his judgment, Justice Gounder said while mitigation and sentencing were pending, a new government had come into power and a new Attorney-General had been appointed.

He said that after the change of government [FijiFirst lost the general election last December], Justice Jude Nanayakkara, who had been previously presiding over the case, had resigned as a Fiji judge and left the jurisdiction without concluding proceedings.

Justice Gounder said the new Attorney-General, Siromi Turaga had taken a different position regarding the proceedings, which he had expressed in an affidavit filed in support of the summons to dismiss the proceedings.

Ruling set aside
Turaga stated that his view was that the proceedings should never have been instituted against Naidu in the first place.

In the affidavit, Turaga said he had conveyed to Naidu that his view was that the ruling of 22 November 2022 ought to be set aside and the proceedings dismissed.

He added that Naidu had confirmed he would not seek to recover any costs he had incurred in defending the proceedings.

Justice Gounder said the Attorney-General played an important function as the guardian of public interest in contempt proceedings which alleged conduct scandalising the court.

Lawyer Richard Naidu’s conviction ruled not to be recorded and the charge of contempt dismissed. Video: Fijivillage.com

He said the position of the Attorney-General had shifted and he was not seeking an order of committal against Naidu.

The judge said Turaga dkid not support the findings that Naidu was guilty of contempt scandalising the court.

He said it had not been suggested that the present Attorney-General was acting unfairly as the representative of public interest in consenting to an order setting aside the judgement.

Facebook posting
Naidu was found guilty in November last year by High Court judge Justice Jude Nanayakkara for contempt scandalising the court.

Naidu posted on his Facebook page a picture of a judgment in a case represented by his associate that had the word “injunction” misspelt [as “injection”], and then made some comments that he was pretty sure the applicant wanted an injunction.

The committal proceeding was brought against Naidu by the then Attorney-General, Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum.

Naidu was represented by Jon Apted while Feizal Haniff represented the Attorney-General.

Rashika Kumar is a Fijivillage reporter. Republished with permission.

Post Fiji Ltd has engaged a law firm to recover $9.6 million from an Australia-based mail logistics company that used Post Fiji’s logo to conduct business dealings with postal agencies around the globe.

This, according to the Auditor-General in his report on the review of public enterprises 2020-2021 that was tabled in Parliament this week.

The Auditor-General said Post Fiji Ltd had no legal contract with the company that racked up the $9.6 million debt.

“To ensure that the company’s (Post Fiji Ltd) interests are always protected, any business engagements with external parties must be formalised with an agreement endorsed by the board,” said the Auditor-General.

“An international mail logistics company based in Australia used the logo of Post Fiji (Pte) Ltd for its business dealings with various postal agencies around the globe.

“Consequently, the international postal agencies recognised Post Fiji Ltd as the sender of all the international mails sent by the international company.

“As a result, Post Fiji (Pte) Ltd was invoiced by the international postal agencies for doing business with the international company.

“In addition, under the Universal Postal Union Agreement, Post Fiji (Pte) Ltd has a legal obligation to pay the international postal agencies through an invoice amount.

“To recover its costs, Post Fiji Ltd invoiced the international company for the amount it paid plus a percentage mark-up.

“Post Fiji (Pte) Ltd was unable to recover the cost as there was no legally binding agreement with the international company.”

The Auditor-General recommended that Post Fiji should explore all avenues to recover the significant debt owed and ensure that all significant business engagements in the future are endorsed by the board and an agreement is in place.

Post Fiji Ltd said lawyers were handling the matter and the legal battle between PFL, and the international company would take some time to resolve.

The balance of $9.6 million remains outstanding since June 2020.

Anish Chand is a Fiji Times reporter. Republished with permission.

The Fiji Attorney-General’s office has terminated the instructions of lawyers Devanesh Sharma and Gul Fatima in the contempt of court case involving Suva lawyer Richard Naidu.

Mary Motafaga, a lawyer in the Attorney-General’s office, confirmed to Justice Daniel Goundar when the matter was called in the High Court yesterday, that the law firm of R Patel & Co was no longer retained.

Justice Goundar told Motafaga and Naidu’s counsel, Jon Apted, that he had called the matter before him to ensure that the parties were aware of the resignation of the previous judge in the case, Justice Jude Nanayakkara.

• READ MORE: Other contempt of court case reports

Naidu was alleged to have scandalised the court in a Facebook post sharing an excerpt of a judgment which showed the word “injunction” misspelled as “injection” and suggesting that “maybe our judges need to be protected from all this vaccination campaigning”.

On November 22, 2023, Justice Nanayakkara found Naidu guilty of contempt of court and convicted him of scandalising the court.

Justice Goundar said that Acting Chief Justice Salesi Temo had now allocated the case to him.

“I understand that we are now at the sentencing stage of the proceedings,” he said.

Justice Goundar said he wished the parties to note that he had no personal interest in the case or any relationship with any of the parties to it.

“We are at the sentencing stage and I would like to hear the parties on where we go from now regarding this matter.”

Motofaga confirmed to the court that the A-G’s office had taken over the matter but had not yet received the files on the case, so was requesting a three-week adjournment.

Justice Goundar adjourned the case to April 3, 2023, for mention “to check the position of the Office of the A-G in relation to this matter”.

Repeka Nasiko is a Fiji Times reporter. Republished with permission.

As an Indonesian lawyer living in exile in Australia, I find it deeply troubling that the changes to the Indonesian Criminal Code are seen through the lens that touchy tourists will be denied their freedom to fornicate on holiday in Bali.

What the far-reaching amendments will actually mean is that hundreds of millions of Indonesians will not be able to criticise any government officials, including the president, police and military.

You can be assured that the implementation of the Criminal Code will not affect the lucrative tourism industry which the Indonesian government depends on – it will affect ordinary people in what is the world’s third largest democracy.

• READ MORE: Other West Papua human rights reports

With just 18 out of 575 parliamentarians physically attending the plenary session, Indonesia passed the problematic revised Criminal Code last week. It’s a death knell to democracy in Indonesia.

I live here as an exile because of my work on the armed conflict in West Papua. The United Nations has repeatedly asked Indonesia to drop the politicised charges against me. One of the six laws used against me, about “distributing fake news”, is now incorporated into the Criminal Code.

In West Papua, any other version of events that are different to the statement of police and military, are often labelled “fake news”. In 2019, a piece from independent news agency Reuters was called a hoax by the Indonesian armed forces.

Now, the authors of that article can be charged under the new Criminal Code which will effectively silence journalists and human rights defenders.

Same-sex couples marginalised
Moreover, the ban on sex outside marriage is heteronormative and effectively further marginalises same-sex couples because they can’t marry under Indonesian law.

The law requires as little as a complaint from a relative of someone in a same sex relationship to be enforced, meaning LGBTQIA+ people would live in fear of their disapproving family members weaponising their identity against them.

Meanwhile, technically speaking, the heteronormative cohabitation clause exempts same-sex couples. However, based on existing practice, LGBTQIA+ people would be disproportionately targeted now that people have the moral licence to do it.

The criminal code has predictably sparked Islamophobic commentary from the international community but, for us, this is about the continued erosion of democracy under President Joko Widodo. This is about consolidated power of the oligarchs including the conservatives shrinking the civic space.

Back when I was still able to live in my home country, it was acceptable to notify the police a day prior, or even on the day of a protest. About six years ago, police started to treat the notification as if it was a permit and made the requirements much stricter.

The new Criminal Code makes snap protests illegal, violating international human rights law.

Under the new code, any discussion about Marxism and Communism is illegal. Indonesia is still trapped in the past without any truth-telling about the crimes against humanity that occurred in 1965-66. At least 500,000 Communists and people accused of being communists were killed.

Justice never served
Justice has never been served despite time running out because the remaining survivors are getting older.

It will be West Papuans rather than frisky Australian tourists who bear the brunt of the updated criminal code. The repression there, which I have seen first hand, is beyond anything I’ve seen anywhere else in the country.

Treason charges which normally carry life imprisonment are often abused to silence West Papuans. Just last week, three West Papuans were charged with treason for peacefully flying the symbol of West Papuan independence — the Morning Star flag. The new treason law comes with the death penalty.

It’s shameful that Australia just awarded the chief of Indonesian armed forces the Order of Australia, given that his institution is the main perpetrator of human rights abuses in West Papua.

The new Criminal Code will take effect in three years. There is a window open for the international community, including Australia, to help safeguard the world’s third largest democracy.

Indonesians need you to raise your voice and not just because you’re worried about your trip to Bali.

Veronica Koman is an Indonesian human rights lawyer in exile and a campaigner at Amnesty International Australia. This article was first published by The Sydney Morning Herald and is republished by Asia Pacific Report with the author’s permission.

NSW Premier Dominic Perrottet is pleased that a Sydney magistrate jailed protester Deanna “Violet” Coco on Friday. But he is out of step with international and Australian human rights and climate change groups and activists, who have quickly mobilised to show solidarity.

On Monday, protests were held in Sydney, Canberra and Perth calling for the release of Coco who blocked one lane of the Sydney Harbour Bridge for half an hour during a morning peak hour in April.

She climbed onto the roof of a truck holding a flare to draw attention to the global climate emergency and Australia’s lack of preparedness for bushfires. Three other members of the group Fireproof Australia, who have not been jailed, held a banner and glued themselves to the road.

• READ MORE: What Violet Coco’s jailing says about the Australian justice system – Crikey

Coco pleaded guilty to seven charges, including disrupting vehicles, possessing a flare distress signal in a public place and failing to comply with police direction.

Magistrate Allison Hawkins sentenced Coco to 15 months in prison, with a non-parole period of eight months and fined her $2500. Her lawyer Mark Davis has lodged an appeal which will be heard on March 2, 2023.

Unusually for a non-violent offender, Hawkins refused bail pending an appeal against the sentence. Davis, who will again apply for bail in the District Court next week, said refusal of bail pending appeal was “outrageous”.

Climate change protester sentenced to jail over Sydney Harbour Bridge protest. Video: News 24

‘People shouldn’t be jailed for peaceful protest’
In Sydney, about 100 protesters gathered outside NSW Parliament House and then marched to the Downing Centre. The crowd included members of climate action groups Extinction Rebellion, Knitting Nannas and Fireproof Australia but also others who, while they might not conduct a similar protest themselves, believe in the right of others to do so.

One of the protest organisers, Knitting Nanna Marie Flood, was unable to attend due to illness. Her message called for the release of Coco and an end to the criminalisation and intimidation of climate activists.

It was read by another Knitting Nanna, Eurydice Aroney:

“Nannas have been on Sydney streets protesting about gas and coal mines for about 8 years now. Over that time we’ve had lots of interactions with the Sydney Events police, and not a lot of trouble.

“You could say we are known to the police. We were amused and surprised at the recent climate emergency rally at town hall, when one of the police said to some Nannas that he thought we’d fallen in with the wrong crowd!

“Looks like we better clear some things up.”

“We ARE the crowd who knows that climate action is urgent and it starts with stopping new gas and coal. We know the importance of public protests to bringing about social and political change.

“We will stand up against any move to take away the democratic right to protest. What is happening to Violet Coco is a direct result of the actions of the NSW government with the support of the ALP opposition.”

The message ended with a call to all climate activists: “Now is the time to BE THE CROWD — we can’t afford to fall for attempts to divide the climate movement. We all want to save the climate, and to do that we need to protect democracy.”

The Knitting Nannas have launched a challenge to the validity of the protest laws through the Environmental Defenders’ Office.

Snap rally at NSW Parliament and a march to the courts at the Downing Centre where climate activist Violet Coco was sentenced to 15 months in prison last week.

We demand repeal of the draconian anti-protest laws, an end to new fossil fuel projects and serious climate action now! pic.twitter.com/F1Yxs8L0DG

— Padraic Gibson (@paddygibson) December 5, 2022

One of those attending the protest was Josh Pallas, president of NSW Council for Civil Liberties. Civil Liberties has been defending the right to protest in NSW for more than half a century.

In a media release, he said: “Peaceful protest should never result in jail time. It’s outrageous that the state wastes its resources seeking jail time and housing peaceful protesters in custody at the expense of taxpayers.

“Protesters from Fireproof Australia and other groups have engaged in peaceful protest in support of stronger action on climate change, a proposition that is widely supported by many Australians across the political divide and now finding themselves ending up in prison.

“Peaceful protest sometimes involves inconvenience to the public. But inconvenience is not a sufficient reason to prohibit it. It’s immoral and unjust.”

Deputy Lord Mayor and Greens Councillor Sylvie Ellsmore told the crowd that they had the support of the City of Sydney which recently passed a unanimous motion calling for the repeal of the NSW government’s draconian anti-protest laws.

“If you are a group of businesses in the City of Sydney and you want to close the street for a street party, this state government will give you $50,000. If you are a non-violent protester who cares about climate change and you are blocking one lane of traffic for 25 minutes, they will give you two years [in jail].

“We know these laws are designed to intimidate you… Thank you for being the front line in the fight. you are the ones to put your bodies on the line to protest about issues we all care about, ” she said.

Amnesty International support for democracy
Amnesty International spokesperson Veronica Koman emphasised how important it was to see the defence of democratic rights from a regional perspective. She said that Amnesty was concerned that severe repression of pro-independence activists in West Papua was spreading across to other parts of Indonesia.

She fears the same pattern of increasing repression taking hold in NSW.

Human Rights Watch researcher Sophie McNeil, who has won many awards for her journalism, was another person who was quick to respond.

“Outrageous. Climate activist who blocked traffic on Sydney Harbour Bridge jailed for at least eight months” she tweeted on Friday.

Since then she has followed the issue closely, criticising the ABC for failing to quote a human rights source in its coverage of the court case and speaking at a protest in Perth on Monday.

Today she posted this tweet with a short campaigning #FreeVioletCoco video that has already attracted nearly 13,000 views:

Authorities in #Australia are disproportionately punishing climate activists in violation of their basic rights to peaceful protest

Violet Coco has been sentenced to 15 months in prison

Her crime? A peaceful protest that lasted 25 minutes#FreeVioletCoco @hrw pic.twitter.com/5qhyCWs2fk

— Sophie McNeill (@Sophiemcneill) December 5, 2022

‘If you’re reading this, you’ll know I am in prison’
In jailing Coco, Magistrate Hawkins went out of her way to diminish and delegitimise her protest. She described it as a “childish stunt’ that let an “entire city suffer” through her “selfish emotional action”.

Coco has been involved with climate change protests for more than four years and has been arrested in several other protests. On one occasion, she set light to an empty pram outside Parliament House.

Rather than fight on technicalities, she chosen to plead guilty, knowing that if the magistrate was hostile, she could be taken into custody at the end of Friday’s hearing.

Several steps ahead of her critics, she made a video and wrote a long piece to be published if she went to prison.

The piece begins: ”If you are reading this, then I have been sentenced to prison for peaceful environmental protest. I do not want to break the law. But when regular political procedure has proven incapable of enacting justice, it falls to ordinary people taking a stand to bring about change.”

She describes how her understanding of the facts of climate science and the inadequacy of the current response led her to decide to give up her studies and devote herself to actions that would draw attention to the climate emergency.

“Liberal political philosopher John Rawls asserted that a healthy democracy must have room for this kind of action. Especially in the face of such a threat as billions of lives lost and possibly the collapse of our liveable planet.

“But make no mistake — I do not want to be protesting. Protest work is not fun — it’s stressful, resource-intensive, scary and the police are violent. They refuse to feed me, refused to give me toilet paper and have threatened me with sexual violence.

“I spent three days in the remand centre, which is a disgusting place full of sad people. I do not enjoy breaking the law. I wish that there was another way to address this issue with the gravitas that it deserves.”

She describes how she has already been forced to comply with onerous bail conditions:

“I was under 24 hour curfew conditions for 20 days in a small apartment with no garden. After 20 days effectively under house arrest, my curfew hours changed — at first I could leave the house for only 5 hours a day for the following 58 days, then 6 hours a day under house arrest for the following 68 days.

“This totalled 2017 hours imprisoned in my home for non-violent political engagement in the prevention of many deaths. Cumulatively, that is 84 days or 12 weeks of my freedom.”

Premier Perrottet says he does not object to protest so long as it does not interfere with “our way of life”.

If it does, individuals should have the “book thrown at them.”

His “way of life” is one in which commuters are never held up in traffic by a protest while endlessly sitting in traffic because of governments’ poor transport planning.

A way of life in which it is fine for governments to take years to house people whose lives are destroyed by fires and floods induced by climate change, to allow people to risk death from heat because they cannot afford air conditioners, open more coal and gas operations that will increase carbon emissions and turn a blind eye to millions of climate refugees in the Asia Pacific region.

It involves only protesting when you have permission and in tightly policed zones where passers-by ignore you.

Labor still backs anti-protest laws
Leader of the Opposition Chris Minns also says he has no regrets for supporting the laws which he says were necessary to stop multiple protests.

But laws don’t target multiple actions, they target individuals. He has not raised his voice to condemn police harassment of individual activists even before they protest and bail conditions that breach democratic rights to freedom of assembly.

There was no visible Labor presence at Sydney’s rally.

Perrottet and Minns may be making right wing shock jocks happy but they are out of line with international principles of human rights.

They also fail to acknowledge that many of Australia’s most famous protest movements around land rights, apartheid, Green Bans, womens’ rights, prison reform and environment often involved actions that would have led to arrest under current anti-protest laws.

They display an ignorance of traditions of civil disobedience. As UNSW Professor Luke Macnamara told SBS News: “[V]isibility and disruption have long been the hallmarks of effective protest.”

He believes disruption and protest need to go hand in hand in order to result in tangible change.

“There’s an inherent contradiction in governments telling protesters what are acceptable, passive, non-disruptive means of engaging in protests, when the evidence may well be that those methods have been attempted and have proven to be ineffective,” he said.

“It’s not realistic on the one hand to support the so-called ‘right to protest’, and on the other hand, expect the protest has no disruptive effects. The two go together.”

Wendy Bacon was previously a professor of journalism at the University of Technology Sydney and is an editorial board member of Pacific Journalism Review. She joined the protest. This article was first published by City Hub and is republished with the author’s permission.

Fiji lawyer Jon Apted was yesterday accused of contempt of court for comments made in court two weeks ago while defending his client, lawyer Richard Naidu.

Gul Fatima, the lawyer for Attorney-General Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum, told the High Court yesterday that Apted had said that if evidence could not be challenged in court proceedings, “that would be a kangaroo court”.

She claimed that Apted’s comments were “contempt in the face of the court”.

• READ MORE:  Wadan Narsey: Shameful silences over another unfolding tragedy in Fiji
• Other reports on the contempt of court case

“What this means is that there was an officer of the court present in court on October 14, who made a statement to mean, that if this honourable court were to decline orders being sought, this honourable court would be a kangaroo court,” she said.

“Invariably kangaroo courts are not run by presiding judicial officers, with respect, they would be run by kangaroos.

“So the ordinary Fijian reading this article receiving the news in respect of this decision would hold a certain view about this court.”

Fatima asked whether Justice Jude Nanayakkara wanted to launch committal proceedings under Order 52 of the High Court rules of his own motion or refer Apted to any other body.

Application refused
She said the A-G had the right to consider issuing proceedings against Apted in respect of his comment.

Justice Nanayakkara said a matter of contempt in the face of court should go before another judge and that Fatima could inform the court registry.

Justice Nanayakkara yesterday refused Naidu’s application to cross-examine Attorney-General Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum at the hearing of his contempt of court case, scheduled for next month.

He said that Naidu was given full opportunity to defend the alleged contempt or to respond to the alleged contempt by filing an affidavit in reply, denying the allegation or providing some explanation.

“At the hearing of the application if he expresses a wish to give oral evidence on his behalf, he shall be entitled to do so,” he said.

“The court had adopted a sound and pragmatic approach which balances the rights of both the applicant and the respondent.”

Justice Nanayakkara said the cross-examination could be largely directed to a collateral purpose and would, therefore, operate unfairly against the A-G.

He said a “clear line” needed to be drawn between acceptable criticism of the judiciary and statements that are downright harmful to the public interest by undermining or ridiculing the legitimacy of the judicial process.

Ian Chute is a journalist with The Fiji Times. Republished with permission.

The Philippines Court of Appeals has denied the motion for reconsideration filed by Nobel Peace Prize laureate and Rappler CEO Maria Ressa and former Rappler researcher Reynaldo Santos Jr. over their cyber libel case.

In a 16-page decision dated October 10, the court’s fourth division denied the appeal.

Associate Justices Roberto Quiroz, Ramon Bato Jr., and Germano Francisco Legaspi signed the ruling. They were the same justices who signed the court decision, which earlier affirmed the conviction of Ressa and Santos.

• READ MORE: Cybercrime, criminal libel and the media: From ‘e-martial law’ to the Magna Carta in the Philippines — David Robie and Del Abcede
• Philippine Nobel laureate Maria Ressa appeals to Supreme Court
• Other Maria Ressa and Rappler reports

According to the court, the arguments raised by Ressa and Santos were already resolved.

“A careful and meticulous review of the motion for reconsideration reveals that the matters raised by the accused-appellants had already been exhaustively resolved and discussed in the assailed Decision,” the court said.

The court also claimed Ressa’s and Santos’ conviction is not meant to curtail freedom of speech.

“In conclusion, it [is] worthy and relevant to point out that the conviction of the accused-appellants for the crime of cyberlibel punishable under the Cybercrime Law is not geared towards the curtailment of the freedom of speech, or to produce an unseemingly chilling effect on the users of cyberspace that would possibly hinder free speech.”

‘Safeguard’ for free speech
On the contrary, the court said, the purpose of the law is to “safeguard the right of free speech, and to curb, if not totally prevent, the reckless and unlawful use of the computer systems as a means of committing the traditional criminal offences…”

In a statement, Nobel Peace laureate Ressa said she was “disappointed” but not surprised by the ruling.

Rappler’s video report on YouTube.

“The ongoing campaign of harassment and intimidation against me and Rappler continues, and the Philippines legal system is not doing enough to stop it. I am disappointed by today’s ruling but sadly not surprised,” Ressa said.

“This is a reminder of the importance of independent journalism holding power to account. Despite these sustained attacks from all sides, we continue to focus on what we do best — journalism.”

Santos, in a separate statement, said he still believed that the rule of law would prevail.

“The [Appeal Court’s] decision to deny our motion is not surprising, but it’s disheartening nevertheless. As we elevate our case to the SC, our fight against intimidation and suppression of freedom continues. We still believe that the rule of law will prevail.”

Theodore “Ted” Te, Rappler’s lawyer and former Supreme Court spokesperson, said they would now ask the Supreme Court to review and reverse Ressa’s conviction.

“The CA decision denying the MFR [motion for reconsideration] is disappointing. It ignored basic principles of constitutional and criminal law as well as the evidence presented. Maria and Rey will elevate these issues to the SC and we will ask the SC to review the decision and to reverse the decision,” Te said in a statement.

The decision
The Appeal Court also explained its findings on the arguments based on:

• Applications of the provisions of cyber libel under the cybercrime law
• Subject article should have been classified as qualifiedly privileged” in relation to Wilfredo Keng as a public figure

On the validity of the cybercrime law, the court cited a ruling which, according to them, decided the constitutionality of the law.

“We find it unnecessary to dwell on the issue raised by accused-appellants since the Supreme Court, in Jose Jesus M. Disini, Jr., et al., v. The Secretary of Justice, et al. (Disini Case), 5 had already ruled on its validity and constitutionality, with finality.”

The court also reiterated that the story in question was republished. The court said the argument that ex-post facto was applied on the theory that the correction of one letter is too unsubstantial and cannot be considered a republication is “unavailing.”

“As settled, the determination of republication is not hinged on whether the corrections made therein were substantial or not, as what matters is that the very exact libelous article was again published on a later date,” the appeals court said.

On the increase of penalty, the CA said the argument that Wilberto Tolentino v. People has no doctrinal value and cannot be used as a binding precedent as it was “an unsigned resolution, is misplaced.”

That case said the “prescriptive period for the crime of cyber libel is 15 years.”

Traditional, online publications
The appeals court also highlighted the difference between traditional and online publications: “As it is, in the instance of libel through traditional publication, the libelous article is only released and circulated once – which is on the day when it was published.”

Such was not the case for an online publication, the court said, where “the commission of such offence is continuous since such article remains therein in perpetuity unless taken down from all online platforms where it was published…”

On the argument about Keng, the CA said it was insufficient to consider him a public figure: “As previously settled, the claim that Wilfredo Keng is a renowned businessman, who was connected to several companies, is insufficient to classify him as a public figure.”

The term “public figure” in relation to libel refers more to a celebrity, it said, citing the Ciriaco “Boy” Guingguing v. Honorable Court of Appeals decision. The decision said a public figure is “anyone who has arrived at a position where public attention is focused upon him as a person.”

It also cited the Supreme Court decision on Alfonso Yuchengco v. The Manila Chronicle Publishing Corporation, et al., which resolved the argument whether a businessman can be considered a public figure. The court said that being a known businessman did not make Keng a public figure who had attained a position that gave the public “legitimate interest in his affairs and character.”

There was no proof, too, that “he voluntarily thrusted himself to the forefront of the particular public controversies that were raised in the defamatory article,” the CA added.

In 2020, Manila Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 46 convicted Ressa and Santos over cyber libel charges filed by Keng. The case tested the 8-year-old Philippine cybercrime law.

The Manila court interpreted the cyber libel law as having a 12-year proscription period, as opposed to only a year. The lower court also decided that republication was a separate offence.

Aside from affirming the Manila court’s ruling, the CA also imposed a longer prison sentence on Ressa and Santos, originally set for six months and one day as minimum to six years as maximum.

The appeals court added eight months and 20 days to the maximum imprisonment penalty.

Jairo Bolledo is a Rappler journalist. Republished with permission.

The Mexican standoff over the closure of Papua New Guinea government offices due to nonpayment of rentals has ended.

The National Court has ordered superannuation fund landlord Nambawan Supa Limited (NSL) to remove all locks to Vulupindi Haus, Treasury Haus, Eda Tano Haus in Waigani and Revenue Haus in downtown Port Moresby.

At the same time, the government has honoured its commitment to pay a further instalment of K30 million (NZ$15.3 million) to NSL, bringing the outstanding total paid up to K82 million (NZ$42 million).

• READ MORE: Lockout threat in PNG over government rent arrears

The Waigani National Court presided by acting judge Justice Emma Wurr granted on Friday the ex-parte application filed by Finance Secretary Dr Ken Ngangan for the removal of locks to the buildings.

Dr Ngangan instituted the proceeding as the chairman of the Government Office Allocation Committee through his lawyer Milfred Wangatau of ACE Lawyers, ordering Nambawan Super Ltd to remove the locks on government offices.

NSL had locked doors to its buildings that housed major government departments over outstanding rental arrears.

The five major government agencies affected were the Department of Finance, Department of Treasury, Department of Lands, Department of National Planning and Internal Revenue Commission.

During the hearing, Wangatau submitted to the court that the state had paid NSL more than K50 million in September.

Committed to settle arrears
He submitted that while the state did admit that there may be some outstanding rental arrears, it stood committed to settle its arrears but NSL decided to go ahead and lock the offices.

“NSL’s abrupt decision to lock out very important government public service delivery agencies should be the last resort as it only goes to hold the people of the nation at ransom when vital government services are disrupted,” Wangatau submitted.

He added that damages would be irreparable if the reliefs sought in the application were not granted as it would certainly have an adverse effect on the public at large.

Wangatau further submitted that it was in the interest of justice that the court should grant temporary mandatory orders ordering NSL to unlock all the government offices and allow government business and public service delivery to return to normalcy pending the substantive hearing.

Justice Wurr agreed and granted the interim orders and adjourned the matter until this Friday, for inter parte hearing.

Among the orders issued, Justice Wurr ordered that the defendant (NSL), its employees, servants and agents must immediately unlock all doors to the Vulupindi Haus, Revenue Haus, Treasury Haus and Eda Tano Haus to allow staff and officers of the respective state departments to have access to ensure government business and service delivery can resume as usual.

Justice Wurr ordered NSL to comply with the orders immediately upon services of the orders.

NSL ‘relieved’
Meanwhile in a press statement, NSL said it was relieved to receive a further K30 million payment from the state last Friday in its new commitment to offset rental arrears it owes to the fund’s contributing members.

This brings the total amount paid by the state to K82 million.

And representatives from the Departments of Finance and Treasury have signed a Letter of Agreement committing to pay the outstanding balance of K90 million in a series of monthly payments starting in November.

Nambawan Super chairman Mr Reg Monagi said: “We are pleased to have received the second payment of K30 million and we thank the Departments of Finance and Treasury, who after extensive discussions and negotiations, have committed to an agreement for the settlement of these arrears.”

“Acting in good faith after the State’s positive actions, on Friday night, we lifted the lockout of the Revenue Haus (Internal Revenue Commission), Vulupindi Haus (Department of Finance) and EdaTano Haus (Department of Lands & Physical Planning) and Treasury Haus (Department of Treasury).

“We hope that as we have acted in good faith, the State will continue to honour its commitment to our members by settling the remaining outstanding rental arrears.

Retirement outcomes ‘now protected’
“Nambawan Super appreciates that the State has recognised how important the payment of these arrears are to ensuring that our over 214,000 members’ retirement outcomes are protected.

“The unpaid rentals that accumulated over three years have already impacted the returns for members causing fewer funds available to reinvest and grow.”

“Any further delays to the scheduled payments will have a further detrimental impact on the returns of Nambawan Super members.”

“NSL remains committed to working closely with the State to ensure the payment of all outstanding arrears are made as agreed in the payment schedule, and will not hesitate to lock out the State again if it is unable to do so,” Monagi said.

Republished with permission.

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

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

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

• READ MORE: Other Vanuatu political crisis reports

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A former president of Kiribati warns the crisis involving the island nation’s government and the courts has left the country with a “dysfunctional judiciary” and put a question mark over its democratic system.

The Kiribati government suspended its chief justice in July and last Thursday immigration and police detained and attempted to deport High Court Judge David Lambourne.

They were unsuccessful after the country’s highest court ordered the Australian-born judge to be released.

• READ MORE: Australian-born judge released from immigration detention in Kiribati, after being held overnight
• Other reports on Kiribati politics

The Court of Appeal stopped the government from deporting Lambourne pending a further hearing expected to be held this week, escalating further acrimony between the executive and judicial arms of the state.

Anote Tong, who was president of Kiribati from 2003 to 2016, says the issue of Judge Lambourne has clear “political connotations” because he is married to the leader of the opposition.

But, he said, the actions of President Taneti Maamau’s government bordered on contempt of court.

“The deportation order by the president [Maamau] is really in direct contravention to the decision by the court. So, whether the government is now in contempt of court is the question that really needs to be addressed,” Tong told RNZ Pacific.

“To be in direct conflict with the decision of the court here, I think we know what that means.”

‘Abiding by the laws of Kiribati’
In a statement, the government maintained that Judge Lambourne had breached his visa conditions and national laws and raised concern “by the overreach of the Court of Appeal” to issue an injunction to prevent his deportation.

The government said it “abides by the laws and the Constitution of Kiribati … to protect the interest of the people of Kiribati”.

It blamed “neocolonial forces” for “weaponising the laws enacted to protect” the i-Kiribati people “to pursue their own interest and suppress the will of the people”.

But Tong said the separation of powers is a fundamental principle of a democratic society.

“We have a constitution. We have the laws in place, and we have a court. The question is: are we adhering to these legal provisions?,” he asked.

“It looks like the government is crossing that boundary and delving into the purview of the judiciary.”

Tong said the problem between the government and Judge Lambourne began after the 2020 elections when his wife, Tessie Lambourne, was elected as leader of the opposition.

“There is no question about it,” he said, adding it did not “give an excuse for the government to ignore a court decision”.

He said until Kiribati amended its laws and constitution “to recognise that the separation of powers is fundamental to its democratic system of government, everything else that has been done will become illegal”.

International condemnation
The Commonwealth Magistrates’ and Judges’ Association (CMJA), the Commonwealth Legal Education Association (CLEA), and the Commonwealth Lawyers Association (CLA) have all raised concerns and said they were “alarmed” at the situation.

The associations have urged the Kiribati authorities to respect the rule of law and comply with orders of the courts.

“The associations are alarmed that the tribunals set up to investigate alleged misbehaviour by Judge David Lambourne and the Chief Justice William Hastings have yet to report on any findings,” they said via a joint statement.

“The associations are further alarmed that there has been an attempt to deport Judge Lambourne without due process being followed and he has subsequently now been arbitrarily detained by the authorities in Kiribati.”

CMJA, CLEA and CLA are urging the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group (CMAG) to consider the actions of the Kiribati government as a matter of urgency.

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

The holding of New Caledonia’s third and final referendum on independence from France during the covid-19 pandemic last year is being challenged in the European Court of Human Rights.

Les Nouvelles Calédoniennes reports a voter wants France to be convicted in the court in Strasbourg for holding the vote in December despite pleas for its deferral.

Pro-independence parties had repeatedly asked for the vote to be postponed to this year because of the impact of the covid-19 outbreak on the indigenous Kanak people.

• READ MORE: Other reports on the New Caledonia independence votes

Paris dismissed the concerns.

More than 96 percent of the electorate rejected independence in the December vote, which was marked by a low turnout after the pro-independence parties called on their supporters to abstain.

The pro-independence side continues to refuse to accept the result as the legitimate outcome for the people to be decolonised.

Last month, France’s highest administrative court rejected a claim by the Kanak customary Senate that the impact of the pandemic was such that the referendum outcome was illegitimate.

The court found that neither constitutional provisions nor the organic law made the validity of the vote conditional on a minimum turnout.

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

In a deeply Catholic country, accusations that an American priest abused dozens of children at an orphanage stunned many in East Timor.

So when independent journalist Raimundos Oki heard that a group of girls planned to sue authorities, claiming they had been subjected to unnecessary virginity tests as part of the criminal case, he knew he had to hear their story.

Oki published interviews with the girls on his news website, Oekusi Post, ahead of the trial of Richard Daschbach. The then 84-year-old American priest was jailed in December for 12 years for child abuse.

• READ MORE: Other reports about journalist Raimundos Oki
• Other reports on the Richard Daschbach case

But now Oki is under investigation himself, on accusations that he breached judicial secrecy.

The case is unexpected in East Timor. Also known as Timor-Leste, the country has one of the better records globally for press freedom.

Groups including Reporters Without Borders (RSF) and Human Rights Watch, however, note that the risk of legal proceedings and a media law with vague provisions that journalists “promote public interest and democratic order” could encourage self-censorship on some subjects, including accusations of abuse in the Catholic Church.

Call from police
Oki learned that he was under investigation when police called on June 29, ordering the journalist to report to a police station in Dili, the capital, the following day.

At the station, police informed Oki that the public prosecutor’s office had ordered an investigation into the journalist for allegedly “violating the secrets of the legal system.”

The investigation is connected to the reports Oki published in 2020 about a planned lawsuit against authorities. In it, the claimants alleged authorities subjected them to virginity tests while investigating claims of abuse against the priest.

In their lawsuit and in interviews with Oki, the claimants said they had told authorities they were not among the minors abused by the priest, but that authorities still forced them to undergo the invasive procedure.

“They wanted to share what they went through with the public,” Oki said. “As a journalist, it is my duty to share their stories with the world.”

At the time that his articles were published, the priest was still on trial. Oki said a police officer told him the judicial secrecy accusation was linked to Daschbach’s trial.

Authorities have not responded publicly to the lawsuit, which was filed in July 2021.

The public prosecutor’s office in Dili didn’t respond to VOA’s request for comment.

If convicted, Oki could face up to six years in prison.

‘Public interest’
Both the journalist and his lawyer, Miguel Faria — who also defended Daschbach in his trial — deny that Oki breached judicial secrecy, citing public interest as a justification for publishing the interviews.

“Cases of forced virginity tests are considered public interest, and it is very important for the public to know what happened to these victims,” Faria said.

The lawyer said that in this case, “the victims speak firsthand about their experiences”.

Judicial secrecy laws are often enforced to ensure the right to a fair trial or to prevent the risk of a jury being influenced by reporting. UNICEF and others also have guidelines for coverage of child abuse and trials to prevent minors being identified or retraumatised.

Rick Edmonds, a media analyst at the Florida-based Poynter Institute for Media Studies, said that in some countries, interviewing witnesses during or even shortly before a trial takes place can jeopardise the trial or provide grounds for appeal if the jury was not entirely sequestered.

Daniel Bastard, Asia-Pacific director at RSF, said that prosecutors should consider some legal arguments, including that the girls’ testimonies were published during Daschbach’s trial.

But, he said, “from a press freedom point of view, we need to look at the bigger picture on this issue and think about the public interest.

“I think the very key in this case is the idea of public interest. In a functional democracy, there can be some debate between the necessity of judicial secrecy and the need for the public to know exactly what is at stake,” Bastard told VOA.

Showing the suffering
Oki said his objective was to show the suffering the girls went through. At the time, he said, the media focus was the trial of the priest and not the experiences of minors, who say they went through unnecessary procedures while the case was investigated.

“Forced virginity test is a violation of basic human rights,” he said. “This practice is against every international norm of human rights.”

The reporter said authorities didn’t need to carry out such tests to build a case against the former priest.

The United Nations has called for so-called virginity tests to be banned, saying the procedure is both unscientific and “a violation of human rights.”

Parker Novak, a Washington-based expert on East Timor, believes Oki’s case is controversial because it touches on the role of the church in the Timorese society.

“There is a reluctance in the Timorese media, in the Timorese society, to report critically on influential institutions and leaders,” he told VOA.

The Catholic Church is arguably the most influential institution in the Timorese society, he said.

“So certainly, any reporting that can be perceived as critical of the church, even if that reporting is wholly justified, whereas this case probably was, it’s still seen as taboo within the Timorese society, and that’s what causes controversy,” Novak added.

Closed trial
East Timor is said to contain the highest percentage of Catholics outside Vatican City, and the priest, Daschbach, was a revered figure in the community who had the support of former President Xanana Gusmao, who attended the sentencing.

The Associated Press reported that Daschbach’s trial was closed to the public and that some witnesses complained of being threatened.

A US federal grand jury in Washington later indicted the priest for illicit sexual contact in a foreign place and wire fraud.

Oki has faced legal action previously for his reporting. In 2017, the journalist was accused of criminal defamation over a 2015 article published in the Timor Post about then-Prime Minister Rui Maria de Araujo.

Charges in that case were later dropped, but Oki believes the case against him this time is more complicated.

“If they want to politicise it, then I believe they will imprison me,” Oki said.

“However, if they look at the story, which was published last year along with several videos, they will see that there is no wrongdoing.”

The Indonesian government has filed a K105.6 million (US$30 million) writ against Papua New Guinea, naming two senior officials as persons of interest toward the illegal shipments of hazardous materials.

The two officials named are acting managing director for Conservation and Environment Protection Authority (CEPA) Gunther Joku and State Solicitor Daniel Rolpagarea.

Republic of Indonesia’s Ministry of Environment and Forestry-Basel Protocol’s Department’s Chief Compliance Officer Siti Muhammad told the Post-Courier they had been given the cold shoulder by the PNG government over the issue.

• READ MORE: Other PNG environmental reports

Last week the Indonesian government, in a letter addressed to the CEPA’s’s acting managing director Gunther Joku demanded that the PNG government pay a fine of K105.6 million (US$30 million) in 14 days for the management and storage of six illegal oil shipments.

Muhammad said that by 1 August 2022 PNG would be required to seek written approval from Indonesia Environment prior to the loading of any oil-related products, including but not limited to HS 1511 – Palm Oil HS 2710 – Crude Oil.

“We have advised Sime Darby (Malaysia) of the new process required effective August 1 2022 toward any oil palm shipments which transit through our waters and Indonesia Customs is advising PNG customs as such,” she said.

“It is my intent to ensure that any shipments coming from Papua New Guinea are monitored and checked for correct information due to the ongoing mislabeling issues.

Filed a writ
“We have filed a writ against the State of Papua New Guinea, naming Mr Gunther Joku and Mr Daniel Rolpagarea as persons of interest toward the illegal shipments of Hazardous Materials from Papua New Guinea and they will be advised in due course and requested to attend the hearing in Jakarta.”

Muhammad said they were currently planning a ban on any oil shipments through Indonesian waters either to or from PNG until such a time they had assurance that the products which were being claimed, were indeed what were being shipped.

This includes oil palm and crude oil.

“The waters of Indonesia are critical to the Asia-Pacific region and we acknowledge that on the previous instance of PNG causing a spill from an illegal shipment, no recognition or rectification was provided,” Muhammad said.

“Our waters provide transit for fuel to Australia, New Zealand and the Pacific. Closing our waters due to an issue from Papua New Guinea will see the entire Indo-Pacific shut down and provide an unthinkable security risk to the region.

“Many countries will suffer if our waterways are blocked due to this occurrence. Indonesia will not take such risks purely because Papua New Guinea lacks the interest to implement programs which she has signed to.”

Melisha Yafoi is a PNG Post-Courier reporter. Republished with permission.

In a sign of utter desperation as Fiji’s general election election approaches, the Attorney-General, Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum, has targeted his potential rival, Richard Naidu, by obtaining leave in the High Court to bring committal proceedings against the lawyer and prospective NFP candidate for allegedly “scandalising and ridiculing the courts and the judiciary”.

Astonishingly, it relates to a Facebook posting that Richard Naidu made on 2 Feburary 2022 — almost 5 months ago — yet was brought and heard before Justice Jude Nanayakkara just this week — on Monday, June 27.

The court ruling is attached — as well as Richard Naidu’s offending posting — and readers can see for themselves the basis of the AG’s complaint, which we are unable to comment on further for legal reasons.

• READ MORE: Other Grubsheet articles on Fiji’s political and social justice affairs

In a statement, the AG said: “ We all owe a duty to protect our Courts and Judiciary from scandal or ridicule”.

Yet if the courts and the judiciary were, in fact, “scandalised” or “ridiculed” back in February, why has it taken this long for Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum to act?

As he says, “this matter is now before the Courts and the committal proceedings will take their normal course”.

The application for committal has been granted by the judge and the matter will now proceed to hearing. But it is the timing of this action that raises serious questions that are clearly in the public interest.

Election timing?
Because Fijian voters — and especially those looking forward to voting for Richard Naidu — have no way of knowing whether the matter will be heard before the election or not.

Why has it taken five months to bring this action? Precisely how has Richard Naidu scandalised or ridiculed the courts or the judiciary with what, at face value, appears to be a light-hearted comment?

FACT: Although it has not been formally announced, Richard Naidu is standing for the National Federation Party in the coming election.

REASONABLE ASSUMPTION: Given the post-election coalition agreement between the People’s Alliance and the National Federation Party (NFP), it can be assumed that if they are successful in forming government that Richard Naidu would be the logical choice to be attorney-general.

REASONABLE ASSUMPTION: So Richard Naidu is no longer merely the head of the law firm, Munro Leys, or a private citizen active in the community, but is set to go head-to-head with Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum at the coming election and has designs on his job.

ERGO: Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum has every reason to place obstacles in Richard Naidu’s path to try to prevent him from contesting the election.

CONCLUSION: The AG is not only desperate as the election approaches and the government’s fortunes plummet to 21 percent (by the account of his cheerleaders at the Fiji Sun). The prospect of Richard Naidu not only aspiring to replace him as AG but with the very real prospect of being successful in doing so challenges his gargantuan ego and must gnaw at his inner being.

Richard Naidu is everything Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum is not. The head of a major law firm, not a corporate lawyer who got lucky riding on the coat-tails of a coup leader.

Richard Naidu is also popular and respected, which Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum might have been once, but no longer.

And if the polls are correct, Richard Naidu will replace Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum as AG but Khaiyum will fight like a scalded cat to prevent that from happening.

That’s the context of this court action and you certainly don’t need a great legal brain to work it out.

Australian-Fijian journalist Graham Davis publishes the blog Grubsheet Feejee on Fiji affairs. Republished with permission.

An Aotearoa New Zealand health workforce recruiting agency is fielding calls from senior US doctors who say they can no longer live in their own country.

Accent Health Recruitment has been flooded with inquiries from US doctors wanting to come to New Zealand following the US Supreme Court’s decision overturning abortion rights last Friday.

The ruling has made access to abortions all but impossible in at least 18 states.

• READ MORE: Other reports about the US abortion court ruling

Accent Health Recruitment managing director Prudence Thomson said she normally got about 30 inquiries a day but that had doubled since the ruling.

“The emotion and frustration attached to their email, you could just feel it. They’re saying, ‘we can no longer live in this country, we need to come, will you have us in New Zealand?’

“It was quite an emotional tug, as far as of people really wanting to leave and throwing their hands in the air.”

Thomson said most inquiries were from GPs and obstetricians.

‘A spike in inquiries’
“There has been quite a spike in inquiries from them — they’re really passionate about looking after their patients and now they no longer are able to provide the healthcare they want,” she said.

“So they want to come to New Zealand to practise, which is good for New Zealand.”

Thomson said while it was sad these health workers felt forced morally to leave, it would help this country’s health worker “crisis”.

However, she said it would take at least six months before the American health professionals could work in New Zealand.

“Every medical professional needs to get their qualifications verified to come to New Zealand and that takes from three to six months.

“While we want to speed it up we don’t want to cut corners because in a crisis that’s when the weaknesses will be exposed and that’s when the people who want to commit identity fraud could get through.”

However, she said it should still give the chronically understaffed health sector some hope that help was coming.

Messaging about jobs
US nurse McKenzie Mills recently moved to New Zealand and said former colleagues had been messaging her about jobs ever since the US Supreme Court ruled against abortion.

She said she was heartbroken and angry after the ruling.

However, she said she was even more sure now that her decision to move to New Zealand in January was the right one.

“I take care of people and it just really broke my heart that there is so much health care that will be denied to millions of women.”

Mills said she felt like she had “escaped” her own country as a result of the ruling.

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

Last week on June 17 2022, UK Home Secretary Priti Patel issued a statement confirming she had approved the US government’s request to extradite Julian Assange.

The Australian founder of WikiLeaks faces 18 criminal charges of computer misuse and espionage.

This decision means Assange is one step closer to extradition, but has not yet reached the final stage in what has been a years-long process. Patel’s decision follows a March decision to deny leave to appeal by the UK Supreme Court, affirming the High Court decision that accepted assurances provided by the US government and concluded there were no remaining legal bars to Assange’s extradition.

• READ MORE: Julian Assange’s extradition case is finally heading to court – here’s what to expect
• A new book argues Julian Assange is being tortured. Will Australia’s new PM do anything about it?
• Other Julian Assange reports

The High Court decision overruled an earlier decision by a District Court that extraditing Assange to the US would be “unjust and oppressive” because the prison conditions he was likely to experience would make him a high risk for suicide.

In the High Court’s view, the American government’s assurances sufficiently reduced the risk.

Another appeal ahead
WikiLeaks has already announced Assange will appeal the home secretary’s decision in the UK courts. He can appeal on an issue of law or fact, but must obtain leave of the High Court to launch an appeal.

This is a fresh legal process rather than a continuation of the judicial stage of extradition that followed his arrest in 2019.

Assange’s brother has stated the appeal will include new information, including reports of plots to assassinate Assange.

Several legal issues argued before the District Court in 2020 are also likely to be raised in the next appeal. In particular, the District Court decided the question of whether the charges were political offences, and therefore not extraditable crimes, could only be considered by the home secretary.

BREAKING: UK Home Secretary approves extradition of WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange to the US where he would face a 175 year sentence – A dark day for Press freedom and for British democracy
The decision will be appealedhttps://t.co/m1bX8STSr8 pic.twitter.com/5nWlxnWqO7

— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) June 17, 2022

The question of whether and how the home secretary decided on this issue could now be ripe for argument.

Assange’s next appeal will also seek to re-litigate whether US government assurances regarding the prison conditions Assange will face are adequate or reliable. His lawyers will also again demand the UK courts consider the role of role of freedom of expression in determining whether to extradite Assange.

Assange will remain detained in Belmarsh prison while his appeal is underway. The decision of the High Court on his appeal against the home secretary’s decision may potentially be appealed to the Supreme Court.

If, after all legal avenues are exhausted in the UK, the order to extradite stands, Assange could take a human rights action to the European Court of Human Rights.

However, the European Court has rarely declared extradition to be contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights, except in cases involving the death penalty or whole-life sentences.

It has not yet considered freedom of expression in an extradition case.

Further appeals could add years more to the saga of Assange’s detention.

Responses from the Assange family and human rights advocates
Assange’s wife, Stella Moris, called Patel’s decision a ‘“travesty”. His brother Gabriel Shipton called it “shameful”. They have vowed to fight his extradition through every legal means available.

Julian Assange’s family respond to decision. Video: Reuters

According to the secretary-general of Amnesty International Agnes Callamard:

Assange faces a high risk of prolonged solitary confinement, which would violate the prohibition on torture or other ill treatment. Diplomatic assurances provided by the US that Assange will not be kept in solitary confinement cannot be taken on face value given previous history.

What role for the Australian government?
Australian Foreign Minister Penny Wong and Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus responded to the latest development last night. They confirmed Australia would continue to provide consular assistance to Assange:

The Australian government has been clear in our view that Mr Assange’s case has dragged on for too long and that it should be brought to a close. We will continue to express this view to the governments of the United Kingdom and United States.

However, it remains unclear exactly what form Australia’s diplomatic or political advocacy is taking.

In December 2021, Anthony Albanese said he could not see what purpose was served by the ongoing pursuit of Assange. He is a signatory to a petition to free Assange. Since he was sworn in as prime minister, though, Albanese has resisted calls to demand publicly that the US drop its criminal charges against Assange.

In contrast, Albanese recently made a public call for the release of Sean Turnell from prison in Myanmar.

In a way, Patel’s decision last week closes a window for stronger advocacy between Australia and the UK. While the matter sat with the UK Home Secretary, the Australian government might have sought to intervene with it as a political issue.

Now it seems possible Australia may revert to its long established position of non-interference in an ongoing court process.

Some commentators argue this is insufficient and that Australia must, finally, do more for Assange. Tasmanian MP Andrew Wilkie said it was high time Australia treated this as the political matter it is, and demand from its allies in London and Washington that the matter be brought to an end.

Barrister Greg Barns likened Assange’s situation to that of David Hicks, who was imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay:

The Howard government at the time brought him back to Australia. This is not unprecedented. It is important that Australia is able to use the great relationship it has with Washington to ensure the safety of Australians.

These comments suggest that Australia ought to focus any advocacy towards the US government, making a case for the criminal charges and extradition request to be abandoned.

At this stage it is impossible to say if the Albanese government has the will to take a stronger stand on Assange’s liberty. The prime minister and foreign minister have certainly invested heavily in foreign relations in the early weeks of their government, with emphasis on the significance of the US alliance.

Perhaps strong advocacy on Assange’s behalf at this time might be regarded as unsettling and risky. The US has had plenty of opportunity, and its own change of government, and yet it has not changed its determination to prosecute Assange.

This is despite former President Barack Obama’s decision to commute the sentence of Chelsea Manning, the whistleblower who provided classified material to Assange for publication through Wikileaks.

Stronger Australian advocacy may well be negatively received. Assange’s supporters will continue to demand that Albanese act regardless, banking on the strength of the Australia-US alliance as capable of tolerating a point of disagreement.

Dr Holly Cullen is adjunct professor, The University of Western Australia and Amy Maguire, Associate Professor in Human Rights and International Law, University of Newcastle. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

An indigenous legal challenge in a bid to annul the result of last December’s referendum on New Caledonia’s independence from France has failed.

The highest administrative court in Paris has rejected a claim by the Kanak customary Senate that the impact of the covid-19 pandemic was such that the referendum outcome was illegitimate.

More than 96 percent voted against independence in the third and last referendum under the Noumea Accord, but more than 56 percent of voters abstained.

• READ MORE: Other reports on the New Caledonian referendums

The pro-independence parties had called for a boycott of the referendum after France had rejected pleas for the vote to be postponed until this year.

When the first community outbreak of the pandemic was recorded in September, a lockdown was imposed, which was extended into October, as thousands contracted the virus and hundreds needed hospital care.

The court in Paris found that the epidemiological situation had improved in October and November and that by the time of the referendum on December 12, more than 77 percent of the population had been vaccinated.

It also said the year-long mourning declared by the Kanak customary Senate in September was not such as to affect the sincerity of the vote.

No minimum turnout
The court added that neither constitutional provisions nor the organic law make the validity of the vote conditional on a minimum turnout.

In the week before the referendum, 146 voters and three organisations filed an urgent submission to the same court, seeking to postpone the vote.

They said given the impact of the pandemic, it was “unthinkable” to proceed with such an important plebiscite.

They said because of the lockdown, campaigning had been unduly hampered as basic freedoms impinged.

However, the court rejected the challenge and voting went ahead as intended by the French government.

Rejecting the referendum outcome, the pro-independence side said apart from court action, it would seek to win the support for its position from the Pacific Islands Forum and the United Nations.

A pro-independence delegate to last month’s UN decolonisation meeting said French President Emmanuel Macron had declared after the referendum that New Caledonia showed it wanted to stay French although it was known that 90 percent of Kanaks wanted independence.

French Senate mission planned
The French Senate is hearing experts this week as its law commission prepares work on a new statute for New Caledonia following last year’s rejection of independence.

The commission, which is chaired by François-Noel Buffet, has also formed a team that will travel to New Caledonia in two weeks for talks with all stakeholders.

The team is expected to stay for a week and complete its work by the end of July.

In December, more than 96 percent voted against independence in the third and last referendum under the Noumea Accord, which had been the decolonisation roadmap since 1998.

However, the pro-independence parties refuse to recognise the result, saying their abstention had rendered the outcome of the process illegitimate.

Paris plans to hold a referendum next June on a new statute for a New Caledonia within the French republic.

Buffet said his mission to Noumea was to consider the institutional situation by consolidating the dialogue initiated by the Matignon and Noumea Accords between France and New Caledonia.

Electoral rolls issue
A key issue will be the fate of the electoral rolls.

The Noumea Accord, whose provisions have been enshrined in the French constitution, restricts voting rights to indigenous people and long-term residents.

Migration this century has added about 40,000 French citizens who remain excluded from referendums and from provincial elections.

The anti-independence parties want the rolls to be unfrozen, but the pro-independence side is strongly opposed to this.

It told the UN Decolonisation Committee that France’s intention to open the electoral rolls to French people who arrived after 1998 was the ultimate weapon to “drown” the Kanak people and “recolonise” New Caledonia.

It warned the Kanaks would be made to disappear, which would not be accepted but inevitably lead to conflict.

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

French Polynesia’s pro-independence leader and mayor of Faa’a, Oscar Temaru, says double standards are at play in probing him over the payment of his legal defence.

Temaru commented on being held for six hours last week for questioning over the Faa’a Council’s decision to pay his legal bill in a 2019 court case, which is still under appeal.

The prosecution claimed the payment amounted to an abuse of public funds and that Temaru should have paid for the expense with his own money.

• READ MORE: The judgment of Tahiti’s Oscar Temaru – a neocolonial sense of déjà-vu – Ena Manuireva
• Other Oscar Temaru reports

A lawyer acting for Temaru said the council was obliged to cover the mayor’s bill, describing last week’s brief detention of Temaru as a bid to tarnish him.

Temaru said such cover had for example been extended to the former chief-of-staff of Nicolas Sarkozy, Claude Gueant.

As part of the probe, the prosecutor in 2020 ordered the seizure of Temaru’s US$100,000 personal savings — a move being challenged by Temaru.

The probe drew criticism as his defence team risked court action for accepting funds that the prosecutor claimed were unduly allotted to Temaru’s benefit.

Prosecutor’s move challenged
One lawyer, David Koubbi, raised the prosecutor’s move with a 22-member agency which rules on professional ethics.

In the 2019 court case, Temaru and two others were given suspended prison sentences and fines in the criminal court in Pape’ete.

They were convicted for exercising undue influence over funding arrangements for a community station, Radio Tefana, which supports Temaru’s pro-independence political party Tavini Huiraatira.

In what was his first conviction, Temaru was given a six-month suspended prison sentence and a US$50,000 fine.

The current and former chairs of the board of the association which runs Radio Tefana, Heinui Le Caill and Vito Maamaatuaiahutapu, had also been given suspended jail sentences of one and three months, respectively.

Radio Tefana was fined US$1 million.

Maamaatuaiahutapu said it would have been easier to blow up the station with dynamite instead of having a trial.

US$1m fine five times radio’s budget
Le Caill said the station’s US$1 million fine was five times its budget, meaning the station was unable to pay and would have to close.

At the time of the trial, Temaru said if he had to be convicted, he should be jailed for life.

After sentencing, Temaru said he was being punished because in the eyes of France he “committed treason” by taking French presidents to the International Criminal Court over nuclear weapons tests.

The case was appealed two years ago but has been deferred four times and is now due to be heard on August 29.

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

The retraction of Kerwin Espinosa, one of the main accusers in the Philippines Bilibid drug trade allegations, has drummed up calls from different sectors to free jailed opposition senator Leila De Lima, but the Department of Justice (DOJ) is not budging.

The difficulty with this development is that Espinosa is not involved in the remaining two drug cases against De Lima in the Muntinlupa Regional Trial Court (RTC), either as a respondent or an official witness.

De Lima was earlier acquitted of one of the original three cases.

• READ MORE: Other reports on justice and the Philippine elections
• Detained, dehumanized: De Lima’s plight should’ve been an election issue
• Background on the Leila De Lima cases

The controversy emerged as the Philippines entered the last week of campaigning for the presidential election next Monday, May 9.

Espinosa submitted a counter-affidavit to the DOJ last Thursday retracting all his allegations, including paying drug money to De Lima. It was for a separate case, but still related to the Bilibid drug trade, involving the same cast of convicts.

“The previous statements/affidavits of Mr Espinosa which he now recanted were never utilised and will not be used by the prosecution as evidence in the two pending drug cases vs Senator Leila De Lima,” DOJ said in a statement.

Manipulation against staunch critic
While De Lima’s lawyer Filibon Tacardon acknowledges the complication of using to their favour a retraction from Espinosa who is not an official witness, the lawyer pointed out that it still implies illegal maneuvering by the government to jail President Rodrigo Duterte’s staunch critic.

Records show that when the DOJ charged De Lima in 2017, it dismissed the complaint against De Lima and Espinosa “for lack of merit”.

Back then, Espinosa faced what could have been De Lima’s fourth charge after claiming he had paid the senator drug money through Ronnie Dayan.

Although the DOJ dropped Espinosa from the charge and as their witness, the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) filed a new case against him in December 2021 over a similar story of drug trade in Bilibid. This is the case where Espinosa submitted his latest affidavit retracting his claims against De Lima.

Espinosa said he was coerced and threatened by police and NBI to cooperate with their narrative.

In a dispatch from Camp Crame, De Lima said: “As I have always been saying, all allegations against me invented by the Duterte machine of lies and fabrications would ultimately unravel.”

Perjury against Espinosa?
Groups called on the DOJ to investigate motu proprio, or on its own initiative, Espinosa’s claim of coercion, but Justice Secretary Menardo Guevarra had a different idea in mind —  pursue a perjury charge against Espinosa.

“We will determine that when he faces perjury charges … I will discuss this matter with the panel of prosecutors. Whether or not his testimony is material to the prosecution’s cause, making false statements under oath is a criminal offense,” Guevarra told reporters.

If the prosecution will not use Espinosa’s retraction, the Muntinlupa courts can call him as their own witness, said criminal law professor Ted Te.

“That’s always within the plenary powers of a court — to get to the truth. Can the court ask about context? Yes. Is it relevant? Of course,” said Te.

Tacardon said that it was the defence turn to present in the one case, while the prosecution is wrapping up in the second, which means the defence will present soon.

“As to whether Kerwin Espinosa will be a defence witness has yet to be discussed,” said Tacardon.

Te suggested De Lima’s team should.

“If the defence were to call Espinosa that would be more than enough for reasonable doubt. The question is why should the court allow it to drag on any further?” Te said.

De Lima has been in jail for five years, her trial attracting global political attention, with the United States even mulling a travel ban against her accusers.

Robredo returns to Central Luzon
Meanwhile, Rappler reports presidential candidate Vice-President Leni Robredo has returned to vote-rich regions Central Luzon and Calabarzon with just over a week until the May 9 elections.

In the first leg of her return to these regions, Robredo will barnstorm Bulacan, the fifth most vote-rich province in the country where 2 million votes are up for grabs.

She had earlier secured the endorsement of Bulacan Governor Daniel Fernando.

Lian Buan is a Rappler reporter. Republished with permission.

Last Sunday, Emmanuel Macron was re-elected France’s president, beating far-right and anti-EU candidate Marine Le Pen.

“Making France a great green nation, that is our project,” Macron tweeted on the night of his victory, after he received 58.5 percent of the votes against 40.5 percent for Le Pen — a lower margin than in the 2017 election, when he got 66 percent of the votes.

In the election campaign, Macron declared he would make France “the first major nation to abandon gas, oil and coal.”

• READ MORE: Other French presidential election reports

While climate advocates are breathing a sigh of relief that Le Pen — who threatened to dismantle wind turbines — lost, Macron’s climate record to date has fallen short of the rhetoric.

Coming to power in 2017 on a promise to “make climate great again”, Macron inherited an underperforming state. France was successfully sued for failing to meet its 2015-18 emissions objectives and is is the only EU member state to have missed its 2020 renewable energy target.

After five years in power, the government remains off track to meet its 40 percent emissions reduction target by 2030 compared to 1990 levels — a goal which it will need to ramp up to align with the EU’s collective goal of at least 55 percent cuts.

Macron has said he wants to accelerate the construction of offshore wind farms, develop nuclear power and a large-scale programme to retrofit homes and make them more energy-efficient. But the deployment of renewables and uptake of electric transport has been slow.

Only one offshore wind farm
France has only built one offshore wind farm. Macron announced this year that France will build 50 offshore wind farms by 2050, with 40GW of capacity.

France’s weak record on deploying renewables is largely due to administrative hurdles and court challenges, especially for wind farm projects, Nicolas Berghmans, Iddri’s lead European affairs and climate expert, told Climate Home News.

The time required for the installation of a wind farm in France is around eight years – significantly higher than in other EU countries, he said.

In 2021, a French court awarded damages to a Belgian couple who claimed that a wind turbine near their house in southern France caused a range of negative health impacts, referred to as “wind syndrome”, including headaches, insomnia and depression.

Construction has started on offshore wind farms “so we should continue to see an acceleration of renewable energy deployment in the coming years,” said Berghmans.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has forced many EU countries to reconsider their long-standing opposition to nuclear power as they seek to reduce their dependence on Russian fossil fuels. France has relied heavily on nuclear energy for decades.

The country derives around 70 percent of its electricity from nuclear energy and is home to 56 nuclear power reactors. In February, the government announced plans to build six new reactors and to consider building a further eight.

Campaigners are not convinced.

New nuclear energy project expensive
Any new nuclear energy project will be expensive and not come online until 2035, said Raphael Hanoteaux, a senior policy advisor on gas politics at E3G.

“Solar, wind and storage are already cheaper than nuclear, and will be even cheaper in 12 to 15 years,” he said.

“French politicians are obsessed with the nuclear industry, which diverts attention from real solutions,” said Neil Makaroff, EU policy officer at Climate Action Network France. “Not a euro of the [coronavirus] recovery plan has been dedicated to renewables. A bad signal.”

“The existing nuclear power plant fleet is quickly ageing, as its underperformance this winter clearly showed, and it is today unlikely that it will be replaced with new reactors with an equivalent generation capacity,” said Berghmans. “Renewable production will have to close this large gap.”

China’s coal miners face a challenge to capture leaked methane

If Macron is to achieve his goal of reducing France’s reliance on Russian fossil fuels, he should focus on transport and housing, Sebastien Treyer, executive director of the think tank Iddri, said.

Enabling access to electric mobility and ensuring large-scale energy efficiency in buildings should be priorities for Macron’s short-term climate strategy, he said.

Electric mobility on rise
Electric mobility is on the rise in France, but it is not growing as strongly as in other EU countries, such as the Netherlands and Norway, said Berghmans. This is partly due to delays in deploying charging infrastructure, as well as to insufficient incentives for the uptake of electric vehicles, he said.

French citizens rely heavily on cars — with 75 percent using a car for their daily commute — and investments in cycling and public transport are lagging, he added.

A carbon tax on fuel has been frozen since 2018, when a proposed hike triggered widespread protests and gave birth to the “gilets jaunes” movement.

“The shadow of yellow vests still looms large. It’s likely Macron’s new government will remain extremely cautious about reintegrating the carbon tax to its arsenal of measures,” Lola Vallejo, climate programme director at Iddri, said.

The country’s citizens’ assembly has identified mandatory minimum energy performance standards for buildings as a key measure to force deep renovation of buildings but this measure has been watered down by the government, said Makaroff.

“Renovation efforts are still timid considering the triple menace of climate change, the cost of living crisis, and the Russia-Ukraine war,” Vallejo said.

“Public support for [this] is still insufficient and poorly targeted to the deep energy renovations that are needed to achieve climate targets,” said Berghmans.

The government should offer more solutions and alternatives to poorer households, whose financial balances are directly impacted by rising fuel prices, he said.

Isabelle Gerretsen is a Climate Change News writer. Republished under Creative Commons.

If you’re as confused as most people by the exact circumstances surrounding the continuing presence in Fiji of the Russian super yacht Amadea, join the club. Here’s our modest attempt to cut through the fog.

Twelve days ago — on April 14 — the CJ Patel Fiji Sun newspaper trumpeted an exclusive with Police Commissioner Sitiveni Qilihio, reporting that the Amadea had been seized. It had not. In fact, it still hasn’t been formally seized.

What happened last week is that the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) obtained a restraining order from the High Court to prevent the Amadea from leaving Fiji. Until that order was granted, there was every possibility in the intervening period of the vessel leaving.

• READ MORE: Other Amadea reports on Asia Pacific Report

In fact, lawyers for the owners were arguing that there was no legal justification to detain the Amadea any longer after they had reportedly paid an amount in fines for customs infringements.

It was only when the High Court granted the restraining order that leaving was no longer a legal option.

Indeed, all along there has been a suspicion that the vessel might try to make a run for it. It has a significant armoury and the security forces would have already factored in their ability to prevent a determined attempt to leave.

This application was lodged by the Office of the DPP on a warrant issued by the United States government. The papers are from Washington DC and passed through the Attorney-General’s Office before carriage of the matter was given to the DPP under the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act.

A second case
Now there is a second case that has been brought before the High Court for the Amadea to be seized. Yes, taken from the owners altogether in line with the American-led sanctions that have been imposed on the nautical playthings and other toys of Russian oligarchs and Vladimir Putin’s cronies the world over.

The High Court will hand down its judgment next Tuesday (May 3), which is expected to be in Washington’s favour.

And sometime after that, the Amadea will presumably become the property of the US government and sail off into the sunset under the command of Uncle Sam in the direction of the US.

It has been an astonishing saga. The original, mostly European crew, had orders to sail from the Mexican port of Mazanillo across the entire Pacific to the Russian port of Vladivosok via Lautoka, where the Amadea has been refuelled and resupplied.

Their services have evidently been terminated and an entirely Russian crew has been on standby to take over when it finally gets permission to sail. Alas for them, their journey to Fiji will have been in vain.

Incredibly, there is still doubt about the vessel’s true ownership. The whole world has been told that it belongs to the Russian oligarch, Suleiman Kerimov, but there is still evidently no conclusive proof — the vessel’s ownership evidently buried in a labyrinth of multiple shelf companies in places like the British Virgin Islands and the Cayman Islands.

For the purposes of the High Court case in Suva, the owner is officially stated as being Millemarin Investment Limited. Is it Suleiman Kerimov?

No evidence about Kerimov
Millemarin Investment’s local lawyer, Feizal Hannif, told the court there was no evidence that it is. He said the vessel’s beneficial owner was in fact one Eduard Khudaynatov. But counsel for the DPP, Jayneeta Prasad, argued that the ownership of the vessel was not an issue. It was subject to a US warrant and the ownership issue was for the American courts to decide.

So fortunately unravelling all of this is not Fiji’s problem. But what was Police Commissioner Sitiveni Qiliho doing 12 days ago telling the Fiji Sun that the Amadea had been seized when we won’t know that for certain until next Tuesday, nearly three weeks after the Sun “scoop”?

And is there going to be any attempt to set the official record straight?

Australian-Fijian journalist Graham Davis publishes the blog Grubsheet Feejee on Fiji affairs. Republished with permission.

Following a district court order referring the extradition of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange back to the United Kingdom’s Home Office, Reporters Without Borders (RSF) has launched a new petition calling on Home Secretary Priti Patel to reject Assange’s extradition to the United States.

RSF urges supporters to join the call on the Home Secretary to #FreeAssange by signing and sharing the petition before May 18.

On April 20, the Westminster Magistrates’ Court issued an order referring Julian Assange’s extradition back to the Home Office, reports RSF.

• READ MORE: Other reports on the Julian Assange case

Following a four-week period that will now be given to the defence for representations, Home Secretary Priti Patel must approve or reject the US government’s extradition request.

As Assange’s fate has again become a political decision, RSF has launched a new #FreeAssange petition, urging supporters to sign before May 18 to call on the Home Secretary to protect journalism and press freedom by rejecting Assange’s extradition to the US and ensuring his release without further delay.

“The next four weeks will prove crucial in the fight to block extradition and secure the release of Julian Assange,” said RSF’s director of operations and campaigns Rebecca Vincent, who monitored proceedings on RSF’s behalf.

“Through this petition, we are seeking to unite those who care about journalism and press freedom to hold the UK government to account.

“The Home Secretary must act now to protect journalism and adhere to the UK’s commitment to media freedom by rejecting the extradition order and releasing Assange.”

Patel’s predecessor, former Home Secretary Sajid Javid initially greenlit the extradition request in June 2019, initiating more than two years of proceedings in UK courts.

This resulted in a district court decision barring extradition on mental health grounds in January 2021; a High Court ruling overturning that ruling in December 2021; and finally, refusal by the Supreme Court to consider the case in March 2022.

RSF’s prior petition calling on the UK government not to comply with the US extradition request gathered more than 90,000 signatures (108,000 including additional signatures on a German version of the petition), and was delivered to Downing Street, the Home Office, the Ministry of Justice, and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office ahead of the historic first-instance decision in the case on 4 January 2021.

The UK is ranked 33rd out of 180 countries in RSF’s 2021 World Press Freedom Index.

Pacific Media Watch collaborates with RSF.

The long-serving New Zealand MP Louisa Wall has fired a broadside at her own Labour Party as she leaves Parliament to take up a Pacific diplomacy role — using her valedictory speech to accuse the party president of leading a corrupt process.

Wall is leaving politics after 14 years — citing a legal battle in the lead-up to the 2020 election over the Manurewa seat as one of the reasons for leaving.

In the days leading up to her final speech at Parliament, she spoke out about a rift with the party’s leadership, claiming the Prime Minister told her directly she would never be a minister.

• READ MORE: Other Louisa Wall reports

Today she slammed the Labour Party for its handling of the Manurewa electorate.

She accused the Labour Party president, Claire Szabó, of leading a “corrupt process”.

“When I was forced out of my electorate in 2020, by the unconstitutional actions of the party president Claire Szabó and some members of council, I was devastated.

“The president accepted a late nomination, did not share the fact of the late receipt with the council until questions were asked and then retrospectively tried to justify and legitimise her actions.”

Agreed to leave
Wall told the House at the conclusion of the spat, she agreed with the Labour Party to leave politics during this Parliamentary term.

“In 2020, I agreed to leave. Because irrespective of the merits of challenging actions, being in a team where there is no appetite for your contribution is not healthy.

“I took the opportunity to complete some of my ongoing work, including in the international advocacy space. I was placed on the list just below where I had been in 2017 and accepted that I was to resign as an MP during this term.”

Wall thanked MPs Michael Wood, Nanaia Mahuta and Tim Barnett for helping her reach this agreement but told the House she was not going of her own volition.

“I stand here today fulfilling my part of the agreement but I want to be very clear that this was not entirely my choice.”

As is custom on Thursday, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern was not in the debating chamber but deputy Prime Minister Grant Robertson watched on.

Despite never holding a ministerial position, Wall has a long list of legislative achievements, including her successful campaign to legalise same-sex marriage.

‘Rapid-fire course’
She told MPs the journey to marriage equality was “a rapid-fire course in process and procedures” not universally supported within the Labour caucus.

“While the deputy leader of the caucus at the time wanted more recognition of civil unions I believed that advocacy for marriage equality was based on fundamental human rights and that civil unions became a stop gap measure because it was not clear that marriage would get over the line,” she said.

“When I expressed this view I was told that this would be the end of my career and I would be on my own.”

Wall said throughout her time in politics she had been able to advocate on housing, period poverty, surrogacy, alcohol policies, revenge porn and abortion safe zones.

With her family watching from the packed public gallery, she finished her speech on a positive note that paid tribute to her previous sporting career.

“So while there have been obstacles to face and overcome I leave knowing I did what I could within those constraints. To use a sporting analogy, I left it all on the field.”

Louisa Wall is taking up a newly-created role as ambassador for Pacific gender equality starting next month.

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

A national network of groups supporting freedom and justice for West Papua has called on Foreign Minister Nanaia Mahuta to condemn Indonesian charges of treason against accused West Papuan Victor Yeimo.

They have called for the release of Yeimo, who this week rejected charges against him in a court hearing in the Papuan provincial capital of Jayapura.

Spokesperson Catherine Delahunty, a former Green Party MP, described the charges against West Papua National Committee (KNPB) international spokesperson as “trumped up” and said Yeimo had suffered a “serious health crisis”.

• READ MORE: Papua rights activist Victor Yeimo rejects treason charges
• Other Victor Yeimo reports

“In addition to taking a strong position in support of Ukraine at this terrible moment we are asking Nanaia Mahuta to stand up for human rights in our neighbourhood,” she said in a statement.

“Last week Victor Yeimo was charged with treason for participating in an antiracism peaceful protest on August 19, 2019.

“He also spoke against the abuse of West Papuan students, which included hours of being harangued and called ‘monkeys’ before being beaten and arrested.

“That is his only ‘crime’, but for that he has been detained for ten months, suffered a serious health crisis and is now in court facing trumped up charges of treason,” Delahunty said.

Yeimo charged with makar
In Jayapura, the preliminary court hearing against Yeimo was held at the Jayapura District Court in Abepura, Papua, on last Monday, reports Suara Papua.

During the hearing, the public prosecutor read out the indictment in which he charged Yeimo under the makar (treason, subversion, rebellion) articles.

The defence believes that the charges are excessive because what happened in August 2019 was a response to the racism which was “rooted in the nature of the Indonesian population against Papuans”.

The prosecution said that during the protest actions which ended in riots on August 29, 2019, there was verbal as well as written involvement of the defendant along with his colleague the chairperson of the KNPB, Agus Kossay, in demonstrations which were facilitated by the chairpeople of the Student Executive Council (BEM) in Jayapura.

“They [the chairpersons of the West Papua National Parliament (PNWP), the Federal Republic of West Papua (NRFPB), the West Papua National Coalition for Liberation (WPNCL) and the Free West Papua Campaign (FWPC), together with the defendant], called for, and took part in committing the act of makar with the maximum [aim] of all or part of the country’s territory [separating from Indonesia],” said prosecutor Andrianus Y. Tomana in reading out the charge sheet in the courtroom.

According to the prosecutor, Yeimo was being indicted for crimes under Article 106 of the Criminal Code (KUHP) in conjunction with Article 55 Paragraph (1) on the crime of makar, Article 110 Paragraph 1 of the KUHP on criminal conspiracy to commit a crime, and Article 110 Paragraph 2 on endeavoring to mobilise people or call on people to commit a crime.

In reply, Yeimo admitted that he had been involved as a participant in the anti-racist demonstration on August 19, 2019. However, the protest happened without problems and after it finished the protesters returned home.

‘I was arrested because of racism’
“I was arrested only because of the racism case, indeed I was involved and it’s true there were speeches.

“But it was not just me that gave speeches, the DPRP [Papua Regional House of Representatives] spoke, the governor spoke, all of the Papuan people spoke at the time. So if I’m being tried, why aren’t they being tried?” he asked.

Yeimo explained that he attended along with other Papuan people in order to oppose and to fight against the racism and this opposition was conveyed peacefully at the Papua governor’s office.

Delahunty said the Yeimo case had attracted a strong response from UN Special Rapporteurs, but in letters to the West Papua Action Network the New Zealand government only said it was “concerned” and that its officials “raise the case”.

The European Union Commission has called for Indonesia to allow their high commissioners to visit West Papua, specifically naming the Victor Yeimo case as a human rights issue.

“Our Foreign Minister needs to support the growing international calls for justice for Victor,” Delahunty said.

“She needs to condemn this outrage and call for the treason charges to be dropped and Victor Yeimo to be immediately released.”

Investigators in French Polynesia have reassessed their case against the pro-independence leader Oscar Manutahi Temaru, who has challenged the seizure of his US$100,000 savings.

The money was taken at the behest of the French prosecutor as part of a probe into the community radio station funding of Temaru’s defence in a trial in 2019.

The highest court in France rejected the move and ordered the investigators to again make the case for seizing the funds.

• READ MORE:  France sued for ‘crimes’ over nuclear tests: Polynesia leader
• Other reports on the Radio Tefana controversy

According to Tahiti-infos, a decision is due on March 8.

The probe into the defence funding was launched after the criminal court in Pape’ete had given Temaru a suspended prison sentence and a US$50,000 fine.

He was found to have benefitted from the funding arrangement for Radio Tefana, which the court said amounted to “undue influence”.

Temaru was implicated as the mayor of Faa’a whose administration paid for the community radio station, which in its turn was fined US$1 million.

Defence wanted case thrown out
The defence wanted the case to be thrown out, saying the prosecution failed to cite a single incident of propaganda on behalf of Temaru’s Tavini Huiraatira party.

At the time, Temaru said the real reason for his conviction was that in the eyes of France he had “committed treason” by taking French presidents to the International Criminal Court over the nuclear weapons tests.

In court, Temaru asked for the appeal case to be heard after the French presidential election, saying he feared there could be political interference in the judicial process.

He suggested as a date for the appeal court sitting June 29, 2022, which he said was the anniversary date of French Polynesia’s annexation by France, but the court rejected his suggestion and set March 22 as the start date for the week-long trial.

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

Papua’s Guinea’s National Court has issued an interim restraining order stopping the planned eviction of thousands of Morata settlers on portion 2733 in the capital of Port Moresby.

MSaka Lawyers, engaged by National Capital District (NCD) Governor Powes Parkop, went to court last Friday in light of the looming eviction by First Estate Limited, a company owned by a local individual and his Chinese business partner.

Governor Parkop, a former human rights lawyer before entering politics, said the interim orders should give the settlers “some comfort”.

• READ MORE: Other reports on Morata settlers

Clarifying his government’s stance, he reiterated that people claiming title to land and their investment partners should provide alternative solutions to the thousands of affected families who are made homeless due to eviction.

He called on title holders and their investor partners to have talks with him on how this humanitarian crisis could be addressed.

“Our people cannot be left homeless for corporate greed or just for the benefit of one title holder,” he said.

More proactive action
“Lands Department and National Land Board should ensure too that they don’t award title to individuals over land which already has thousands of people in occupation,” said Governor Parkop.

Governor Parkop has also directed the Physical Planning Division and Regulatory Department of NCDC to be more proactive in stopping illegal occupation and settlement of both state and customary land in the city.

He made the call yesterday during the first Physical Planning Board Meeting for NCD for 2022.

“Many of these issues could have been avoided had NCDC and Department of Lands cooperated to prevent or stop all illegal occupation and settlements of state and customary land in the city,” he said.

First Estate Limited will be moving a motion on NCDC standing and abuse of court process while NCDC will be moving a motion on the legality of the UDL.

Justice Kariko ordered that:

1. The matter is adjourned to 2 Feb 2022 for hearing of the Plaintiff’s Notice of Motion (NOM) filed on 10/04/21 and the First Defendant’s NOM filed on 02/07/21;
2. Parties shall file and serve any further affidavits for the hearing by Monday 31/01/22;
3. Parties should settle and hand up to the court on the return date a chronology of all related litigation in all courts in relation to the dispute in this proceeding;
4. The hearing of the motions shall not be further adjourned except for good reasons; and
5. Until the return date, the First Defendant, its servants and agents including members of the police force are restrained from entering into the subject land and carry out steps to evict the residents on the land formerly known as Portion 2733, Morata, NCD.

Republished with permission.

Deputy Police Commissioner Operations Anton Billie has given the green light for Papuan New Guinean police in the National Capital District to carry out a major eviction operation.

Settlers who have built their homes on land at the back of the University of PNG, bordering with Gerehu stage 3B and Morata stage one suburbs, will be forced to leave — if they do not comply with the court-ordered eviction notice handed out earlier.

Last week Deputy Commissioner Billie had stopped his men from carrying out the eviction because the court order was “not clear” and he feared that there could be legal repercussions for police involvement — especially with such a huge eviction operation involving many families.

• READ MORE: Lawyers threaten PNG police with contempt over settlers eviction halt

On Tuesday, Billie was served a notice to rescind his decision by the proprietor of the land, Sixth Estate Limited, and on Wednesday, after seeking advice from his legal team, he gave the okay for the eviction exercise to start.

He explained to the Post-Courier newspaper the stop notice was to ensure that the eviction exercise was legally correct and everything was in order.

Civil issues must be clarified
“We have our own legal directorate and any civil issues in nature must be clarified first,” he said.

“This is basically to safeguard the police force and state because on numerous occasions we’ve been taken to court on issues like an eviction exercise done without proper consultation,’’ said Deputy Commissioner Billie.

“My decision was not intended to stop the court order but to get legal clarification into the matter at hand, which must be clarified by the legal team. And, after receiving clarification on the matter, I will let the police execute forthwith and without delay the eviction exercise.

“The eviction will be carried out anytime next week.”

Republished with permission.

A Supreme Court ordered mass eviction of settlers on land between Papua New Guinea’s University of PNG, Gerehu Stage 3B and Morata stage one in the National Capital District has been stopped at the 11th hour by Chief of Police Operations and Deputy Police Commissioner Operations Anton Billie.

Deputy Commissioner Billie’s orders to stop this mass eviction have put him in a collision course with two separate orders of country’s highest court — SCA 19 of 2018 and SCA 77 of 2015 — unless he reviews and rescinds his orders within 72 hours.

Lawyers representing the land developers have threatened the police with a contempt lawsuit.

Deputy Commissioner Billie ordered a freeze on the mass eviction citing concerns that the court order was not clear and that the legal ramifications of police involvement were not properly clarified in such a large scale operation involving many families.

In a minute sent to NCD Central Commander, Deputy Commissioner Billie said: “After having been briefed on the matter involving the occupants of the portion of land, NCDC, Sixth Estate Limited and Lands and Physical Planning Department, I believe it is a very complex issue as it is.

“If a request with clear court orders have been presented for police assistance, then we have to engage our Legal Directorate to clarify our legal standing in the matter first before engaging our men.

“There is no real need for impetuosity.”

Land dispute settled in 2016
But the registered proprietor of the land — as determined and settled by a three-man Supreme Court bench in 2016 — the Sixth Estate Limited, through its chairman and chief executive officer Philip Mark Paguk, said the Deputy Commissioner may not have been privy to the history of the issue.

In a detailed, five-page letter, including attachments, lawyers of Sixth Estate Limited, Kandawalyn Lawyers, explained the background to all the court proceedings from the district, national and Supreme Court and two police operational orders for the eviction exercise.

The law firm urged the Deputy Commissioner to revoke his earlier orders within 72 hours or contempt proceedings in the Supreme Court would be filed against him and others who were hindering the mass eviction.

“There is no stay order of the Supreme Court Decision in Otto and Others vs Sixth Estate Limited and Others; SCANO. 19 of 2018 and SCA. NO.77 of 2015, hence the runway is clear for the proposed eviction to progress in compliance with the Supreme Court Order,” the lawyers advised.

The letter went on further and stated that: “As far as we are concerned, there is no court order in place stopping/hindering/restraining the pro-posed eviction exercise.

“There is a Supreme Court order in place as mentioned in our letter for police assistance, and that paves the way for the eviction to commence with the assistance of police.”

CEO Paguk said that while he appreciated the concerns raised by Deputy Commissioner Billie in his minute freezing the eviction exercise, his company had spent millions of kina in mobilisation for this eviction after almost 10 years of court battles.

Republished with permission.

French Polynesia’s former president Gaston Flosse says he is in mourning because the French state has signed his political death by banning him from political office for five years for abusing public funds.

Flosse made the statement after France’s highest appeal court upheld a 2020 conviction over a long-running corrupt water supply arrangement in Pirae.

The ruling means the 90-year-old Flosse will not be able to contest this year’s French National Assembly elections and next year’s territorial election.

• READ MORE: Other reports on Gaston Flosse’s political controversies

As former and current mayors of the town of Pirae, Flosse and now President Edouard Fritch made the town administration pay for the water use in the upmarket Erima neighbourhood, where Flosse lived.

Flosse had set up the scheme and Fritch allowed the abusive billing process to be continued until the practice was discovered in an audit in 2011.

When the two were convicted in Tahiti in 2020, Flosse was declared ineligible to hold office for five years.

Flosse questioned how the justice system worked, as he was singled out for punishment in a witch hunt while Fritch got away with just a fine.

Why was Fritch still eligible?
He said he wondered why Fritch was not made ineligible for two years because for years the scheme was run while Fritch was mayor.

Flosse’s lawyer said he could not understand the intellectual mechanism used to convict Flosse over the issue.

Losing the appeal in Paris last week, Flosse, will not be able to run for office until 2027, but he said would not give up and would continue with renewed vigour.

Only last week, he had announced his candidacy for one of the three French Polynesian seats in the French legislature.

In 2014, Flosse had been declared ineligible for five years after another corruption conviction and he had hoped to avert a renewed such sanction by taking the matter to Paris.

He was forced to relinquish the presidency to his deputy Fritch, but the two politicians have since fallen out.

Fritch has since been re-elected president and mayor of Pirae.

In French Polynesia, about a quarter of the ruling party’s assembly members have corruption convictions, including the assembly president Gaston Tong Sang.

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

France’s highest court has upheld a corruption conviction of French Polynesia’s former president Gaston Flosse, effectively ending his political career.

It confirmed a 2020 appeal court ruling in Tahiti, which had deprived Flosse of his eligibility to hold public office for five years after finding him and the current president Edouard Fritch guilty of abusing public funds.

As former and current mayors of the town of Pirae, Flosse and Fritch made the town administration pay for the water supply to the upmarket Erima neighbourhood, where Flosse lived.

• READ MORE: Other Gaston Flosse reports

Flosse had set up the scheme and Fritch allowed the abusive billing process to be continued until the practice was discovered in an audit in 2011. In the appeal court in 2020, Flosse had been given a two-year suspended prison sentence.

However, Fritch was allowed to stay in office, but both have been fined and have been ordered to jointly settle the water bill of US$820,000.

When the case went to court, Fritch was a defendant and, as the mayor of Pirae, he was also a complainant because in the civil case running alongside, the town sought to be reimbursed.

In Paris, the court did not accept Flosse’s arguments that the statute of limitations applied, and it rejected a claim that Fritch could not both be a complainant and an accused.

Losing the appeal in Paris, Flosse, who is 90, will not be able to contest this year’s French National Assembly elections nor next year’s territorial election.

Only last week, he had announced his candidacy for one of the three French Polynesian seats in the French legislature.

In 2014, Flosse had been declared ineligible for five years after another corruption conviction and hoped to avert a renewed such sanction by taking the matter to Paris.

He was forced to relinquish the presidency to his deputy Fritch, but the two politicians have since fallen out.

Fritch has since been re-elected president and mayor of Pirae.

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

University of Otago covid-19 experts are not immune to the increasingly vitriolic attacks dished out to scientists commenting on New Zealand’s pandemic response.

Among a litany of attacks University of Otago epidemiologist Professor Michael Baker has endured over the course of the pandemic, at the start of this week a caller told him he had “a target on his back”.

Professor Baker said he kept the caller on the line for about 20 minutes and asked him what that meant “in real terms”.

• READ MORE: Covid-19 experts Shaun Hendy, Siouxsie Wiles file legal complaint against University of Auckland

The caller was an anti-vaxxer who was accusing Professor Baker of propaganda on behalf of pharmaceutical companies, telling him vaccines were dangerous, especially so for children.

The caller had half-baked information gleaned from various sources that did not really make sense, Professor Baker said.

“He had these slogans he was throwing at me, but when I asked him what he meant he didn’t really have any answers.”

This week it was revealed University of Auckland professors Shaun Hendy and Siouxsie Wiles have argued to the Employment Relations Authority their employer was not doing enough to protect them as they shared their expertise with the public.

Professor would call police
But Professor Baker said he had not raised any concerns for his safety with his employer, the University of Otago.

If anyone made a threat where he felt he or his family was unsafe he would not hesitate to involve the police.

The Wellington-based scientist received the occasional phone call where a caller delivered a stream of abuse and hung up, but Professor Baker said he was most likely to receive abuse in the form of emails, averaging a few attacks by email every day.

As an exercise, Professor Baker began classifying the forms of abuse he received into “five categories of insult”, he said.

There were the incoherent streams of abuse, which were easily dealt with, he said.

Some people had major grievances but did not know where to go, and contacted him to vent and, in some extremely sad cases, he would reply and express sorrow and sympathy.

There were anti-vax propagandists whose positions were not based on facts, which he ignored.

There were those with ideological stances who disapproved of the government’s overall strategy, who at times delved into conspiracy theories.

Personal attacks stream
Finally, the group he found the hardest to deal with came as personal attacks from a small stream of people who persistently contacted him, and tried to undermine his ability to comment.

“Talking about how you look, or how you appear – they’re obviously making quite a concerted effort to look at where you might feel a bit vulnerable,” he said.

The attacks had never made him question his role of speaking publicly about the pandemic response, Professor Baker said.

University of Otago evolutionary virologist Dr Jemma Geoghegan said she, too, had not raised any concerns with her employer.

She said “no” to about 90 percent of media requests because the issues were not related to her field of expertise.

In limiting her media exposure, she had limited the number of people who wanted to harass her about her expertise, Dr Geoghegan said.

“I don’t generally speak about vaccines, so [that] abuse isn’t aimed at me,” the Dunedin scientist said.

‘Weirdly strong views’
However, she had published on covid-19 origins and people had “weirdly strong views about that”.

The issues dealt with by her Auckland counterparts were not surprising though and she had sympathy for them.

“This is happening all around the world,” Dr Geoghegan said.

“I’ve got international collaborators that … I think their mental health has suffered.

“Before covid, or at the start of covid, they were really prominent on Twitter and stuff like that, and now they’ve had to delete their accounts because of the amount of abuse they’ve got.”

Hamish MacLean is an Otago Daily Times journalist. This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ and this story first appeared in the Otago Daily Times

Unionists and political activists are among seven prominent women who have brought a lawsuit against the Fiji government challenging new electoral laws requiring them to use their birth certificate names to be registered as voters.

The seven are former government minister Bernadette Rounds Ganilau, politicians Priscilla Singh and Seni Nabou, teacher and community worker Adi Davila Toganivalu, unionists Dr Elizabeth Reade Fong and Salote Qalo and Yasmin Nisha Khan.

They have filed a constitutional redress action against the Attorney-General and the Supervisor of Elections, challenging changes passed by Parliament earlier this year to the Electoral (Registration of Voters) Act and the Interpretation Act.

The seven are challenging the requirement that citizens must only use the name on their birth certificates for voting and other official purposes — including for official identification documents.

Under the new laws, people who wished to use their married or adopted names for these purposes must formally change their names on their birth certificates.

In their action, the applicants say they believe the new laws have a disproportionate, adverse impact upon married women compared with other groups. An estimated 100,000 women are believed to be affected by the law.

The matter was called in the High Court in Suva yesterday before Chief Justice Kamal Kumar.

The Chief Justice gave directions for the filing of affidavits and fixed the case for hearing on February 24.

The applicants are represented by Munro Leys partner and former Supervisor of Elections Jon Apted.

Lawyer Devanesh Sharma, of R Patel and Co, represents the Attorney-General and the SOE.

Fiji faces a general election next year.

Republished from The Fiji Times with permission.

Despite its champions being honoured with a Nobel Peace Prize, press freedom has a “sword of Damocles” hanging over it, warn this year’s two laureates.

Maria Ressa of the Philippines, co-founder of the news website Rappler, and Dmitry Muratov of Russia, editor of the independent newspaper Novaya Gazeta, will receive their prize in Oslo on Friday for “their efforts to safeguard freedom of expression”, reports AFP news agency.

“So far, press freedom is under threat,” Ressa told a press briefing, when asked whether the award had improved the situation in her country, which ranks 138th in the Reporters Without Borders (RSF) press freedom index.

• READ MORE: Rappler’s Maria Ressa, Russia’s Dmitry Muratov win 2021 Nobel Peace Prize
• Nobel Peace Prize winners warn of growing disinformation threat
• Journalists Ressa and Muratov receive Nobel Peace Prize
• Nobel Peace Prize ceremony: Maria Ressa and Dmitri Muratov represent a profession with at least 1636 members killed in 20 years (46 this year alone)
• Philippine reporter who covered drug war killed by shot to the head

The 58-year-old journalist mentioned her compatriot and former colleague, Jesus “Jess” Malabanan, a reporter for the Manila Standard Today, who was shot in the head on Wednesday.

Malabanan, who was also a Reuters correspondent, had worked on the sensitive subject of the “war on drugs” in the Philippines.

“It’s like having a Damocles sword hang over your head,” Ressa said.

Toughest stories ‘at own risk’
“Now in the Philippines, the laws are there but… you tell the toughest stories at your own risk,” she added.

Ressa, whose website is highly critical of Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte, is herself the subject of a total of seven lawsuits in her country.

Currently on parole pending an appeal after being convicted of defamation last year, she needed to ask four courts for permission to be able to travel and collect her Nobel in person.

Sitting beside her on Thursday, Muratov, 60, concurred with his fellow recipient’s words.

“If we’re going to be foreign agents because of the Nobel Peace Prize, we will not get upset, no,” he told reporters when asked of the risk of being labelled as such by the Kremlin.

“But actually… I don’t think we will get this label. We have some other risks though,” Muratov added.

‘Foreign agent’ label
The “foreign agent” label is meant to apply to people or groups that receive funding from abroad and are involved in any kind of “political activity”.

“Foreign agent” organisations must disclose sources of funding and label publications with the tag or face fines.

Novaya Gazeta is a rare independent newspaper in a Russian media landscape that is largely under state control. It is known for its investigations into corruption and human rights abuses in Chechnya.

New Caledonia’s pro-independence parties say the French overseas minister’s visit in the next few days is unwelcome, describing it as “another provocation”.

Overseas Minister Sebastien Lecornu announced his trip as New Caledonia readies for Sunday’s third and final independence referendum after rejected pleas by the pro-independence parties to postpone it to next year because of the pandemic.

While the minister said he would outline details of the 18-month transition phase following the vote in upcoming talks in Noumea, the pro-independence parties have ruled out meeting him.

• READ MORE: Other New Caledonia referendum reports

They said any negotiations will have to wait until after the French presidential election in April.

The customary Kanak Senate, which is a forum of traditional leaders, has now declared Sunday as a day of mourning for the victims of the pandemic and called on Kanaks not to vote.

Its president, Yvon Kona, has also appealed for calm so there would be no trouble on polling day.

An extra 2000 police and military personnel have been flown in from France to provide security across the territory.

Complaint that Lecornu flouted covid rules
Meanwhile, a small pro-independence party has lodged a formal complaint against Lecornu in France after reports that the minister flouted covid-19 restrictions during his visit to New Caledonia in October.

The French investigative news site Mediapart reported that Lecornu had gone for drinks at a meeting with anti-independence New Caledonian politicians.

The complaint alleges that by breaking the rules he imperiled the health of others.

The ministry said the event was a work-related multilateral exchange.

It said in turn it intended to lodge a complaint against the party for defamation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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