The Appeal Court in French Polynesia has acquitted the pro-independence leader Oscar Temaru and two others in the case of the funding of community Radio Tefana.

In 2019, Temaru was given a six-month suspended prison sentence and fined US$50,000 after the criminal court had found that, as mayor of Faa’a, he had funded Radio Tefana to benefit his pro-independence Tavini Huira’atira party.

The 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 (NZ$1.6 million).

The acquittal comes after a repeatedly delayed trial went ahead in the Appeal Court in March.

The radio station had regularly opposed France’s nuclear weapons tests in the region, but the defence said no recording had been produced to prove it was propaganda.

The defence said the French state lied to the local population about the weapons tests for 50 years.

The Tavini party said the real reason for his conviction was that in the eyes of France, Temaru “committed treason” by taking French presidents to the International Criminal Court over the tests.

Tavini Huira’atira, led by Temaru, decisively won the recent election for a new 57-member Territorial Assembly, gaining 44.3 percent of the vote.

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

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

The electoral stalemate in Samoa finally looks set to be resolved with a Court of Appeal ruling on Friday paving the way for a Supreme Court hearing today.

Today’s hearing will determine whether the swearing-in ceremony held last month by the election-winning FAST party was legal.

The Supreme Court is due to sit at 10am local time with a decision due as early as 12:30pm.

The Appellate Court on Friday declared that the issue of a contentious sixth women’s electoral seat could not prevent the convening of Parliament.

The decision refutes the caretaker Human Rights Protection Party (HRPP) government’s claim that the extra seat must be appointed before Parliament could sit.

FAST leader and Prime Minister-elect Fiame Naomi Mata’afa said whatever the Supreme Court decision was today, her party would continue to push to have Parliament convened and for the operational budget to be urgently approved by the end of June deadline.

Fiame has written to the Head of State requesting the house sit on Tuesday.

Back to Parliament
“If it goes against us, all we’ll really need to do is to go back into Parliament and get sworn in and just continue to formulate the government based on our numbers.”

The FAST Party now has a 26-24 seat majority following the HRPP loss of Sagaga No.2 this month in an electoral petition.

Both candidates have been voided for corruption and a byelection is pending.

The Samoa Observer reports that the caretaker prime minister – and leader of HRPP – Tuila’epa Sa’ilele Malielegaoi – has scoffed at FAST’s call to convene Parliament following the Appellate Court decision.

Tuilaepa said at least FAST have had the Appeal Court’s decision explained to them and they now understand what it means.

At an evening of singing at HRPP headquarters on Saturday Tuilaepa said the court has clarified what the decision meant.

“And now they’re claiming they won and want Parliament to convene. There’s no decision like that,” the Observer quotes him as saying.

Tuilaepa maintains that Parliament cannot convene until all legal challenges are dealt with and until a sixth woman member has been chosen as per Section 44 of the Constitution.

Doubts over HRPP members
Meanwhile, the prime minister-elect is questioning the legitimacy of the HRPP MPs who were not sworn in by deadline.

The constitution requires Parliament to convene and members to be sworn in by the 45th day following an election.

None of the HRPP’s 24-member caucus have taken the oath for this term.

FAST leader Fiame said if today’s Supreme Court hearing ruled in favour of her party’s swearing-in, then it brought the status of the HRPP members into doubt.

“There is still a big question on what exactly is the legal status of the HRPP MPs because, you know, they weren’t sworn in within the period that is required. So, you know, that’s another question that’s going to be challenging us.”

Also in court this week the caretaker government and officials face accusations of contempt of court for their role in blocking the FAST party from being sworn in.

FAST says the lockout at Parliament was in defiance of a Supreme Court ruling that Parliament should convene.

In Australia, the Morrison government has called on Samoa’s two political parties to cooperate and convene Parliament, while the Pacific Islands Forum Secretary-General Henry Puna has told media he has been assured by leaders of both parties that they will respect the court’s decisions.

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

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Buoyed as he is by [Wednesday’s] court decision, Samoa’s caretaker Prime Minister has shown a character flaw weighing down upon our national politics: an inability to face up to hard truths.

Despite Tuilaepa Dr Sa’ilele Malielegaoi having just alleged the judiciary was conspiring against him, the Appellate Court ruled in favour of his argument that a minimum of six women MPs need to be appointed to meet a mandated quota in our 51-seat Parliament. We don’t expect that contradiction to be explained anytime soon.

The victory has been seized upon by supporters of the Human Rights Protection Party (HRPP), many of whom have incorrectly concluded the decision will lead to the installation of Aliimalemanu Alofa Tuuau and a Parliament in which the opposing party cannot form government.

They must read the court’s words, reprinted in today’s edition, more closely. In fact, the court voided Aliimalemanu’s warrant of election.

Aliimalemanu herself acknowledged this very point when she told the Samoa Observer that she did not mind which woman MP ended up being elected nor which party they were from, rather she was pleased to have struck a blow for female representation.

And, like the court we applaud her for her devotion to that worthy cause.

The reason Aliimalemanu’s election was voided was because it will not be until after the Supreme Court sorts through some 28 petitions and more counter-petitions that the rule requiring six women will be applied.

There are another six petitions involving women challenging or defending an election result alone, let alone other women candidates who could be elected if byelections are called if a legal challenge to a result is upheld. The number of women elected to the 17th Parliament of Samoa could be higher than the threshold, or it could be much much lower.

Exactly what role this unforeseen constitutional mandate will figure in the final election results is entirely unknowable.

That means two things of extreme significance for the immediate political future of this nation – neither of which Tuilaepa was willing to face up to when speaking on Wednesday afternoon.

For the time being, the Fa’atuatua i le Atua Samoa ua Tasi (FAST) party will retain its 26-25 lead over the HRPP until the election is completely finalised.

How long the courts take to settle the dozens of legal challenges before them will likely be a matter of weeks, not months.

Tuilaepa is increasingly being less seen as a strongman who can be depended upon to steer Samoa through choppy waters as an immovable object with whom much of the political deadlock originated.

Until that time, they notionally — depending, of course — on the outcome of a legal case about the validity of the party’s swearing in, the opponents should notionally have some political breathing room to establish government.

But speaking on Wednesday, Tuilaepa sounded like a man who had not familiarised himself with even the most elementary aspects of the judgment.

He asserted the decision cemented Aliimalemanu’s election and a 26-26 tie between FAST and the HRPP and his rightful place and the ongoing future “custodian” of government in Samoa.

No person with basic literacy skills could have reached either of these conclusions after reading what the court had to say in a succinct and articulate 12-page judgment.

Fiame Naomi Mata’afa, the leader of FAST, took a different and more reasonable view of the judgment, which, as it was, a victory in principle for the HRPP but one with few practical consequences for Samoa’s immediate future.

FAST, she said, had the numbers in Parliament for now and was ready to proceed to transition to a new government, just as previous Parliaments have sat while petitions are in progress.

That puts the two leaders on a collision course that cannot spell good outcomes for this nation.

But the decision also casts in stark relief the fact that the caretaker Prime Minister has shown himself at his most arrogant during a week when he should have learned about humility.

For so many years, Tuilaepa’s tendency toward over-the-top statements have merged with his public-political persona. But it is only in recent weeks as he has begun to feel his power ebb in the wake of an election defeat that we have seen the true depth of the caretaker Prime Minister’s unrelenting self-regard.

He dared to allege only a little more than a week ago that there was a conspiracy against him being cooked up by the nation’s judiciary after his party lost four court battles in a row while trying to use the courts to prevent a new government forming.

Tuilaepa then sought to assume for himself a merged role of judge, jury and Prime Minister by condemning FAST for holding an improvised swearing-in ceremony in order to uphold the constitution.

“I am well versed with this law because I own it; it’s mine,” he said.

Only weeks earlier he said that he was “appointed by God” to lead Samoa and that the judiciary had no authority over his appointment.

The recent decisions of the Supreme Court should have disabused him of the idea that the rule of law is something one man can own.

But the public of Samoa, in one way or another, be it by way of the ballot box or making their feelings known will prove decisive in the resolution of this seemingly endless political saga.

In this time of crisis Tuilaepa’s bombastic persona is no longer proving a political asset but rather something which grates upon the voters of Samoa, and he is losing support evidently.

He is increasingly being less seen as a strongman who can be depended upon to steer Samoa through choppy waters as an immovable object with whom much of the political deadlock originated.

The HRPP have been champing at the bit for another election to be called as a recourse to holding onto power.

But despite winning an absolute number of votes in the April election, almost every step taken by the party and its leader in the interim has done little to endear Tuilaepa to the public. If things continue as they are, the political confidence he had in April is likely to have evaporated by this month’s end.

We saw just as much at the Immaculate Conception Cathedral at Mulivai on Monday evening when he became the subject of a sermon and a general character appraisal by the Archbishop of the Catholic Church, Alapati Lui Mataeliga.

Tuilaepa, not known for welcoming differences of opinion, looked every inch a man in a furnace.

With his eyes closed and fan working overtime, he almost appeared to be hoping to deflect the Archbishop’s words.

It did not, of course.

His Grace’s sentiments are still lingering, long since his homily concluded.

The Archbishop referred to himself as Tuilaepa’s “spiritual father” and indeed he performed his role in this respect by dispensing some home truths to a man — and a nation — in need of them.

Speaking on the eve of Independence Day, His Grace noted that Samoa has had a history of oppression before; we have been colonised by Tongan, German and New Zealand forces in our recent history. Our paramount chiefs have had their natural status constrained and our people have suffered under the yoke of colonial governments which have misused their powers for personal gain.

The historical parallel was obvious.

The Archbishop lamented the current state of the nation which became the first in the Pacific to free itself from colonial rule but only after a long struggle.

“There is no peace and there is no unison and it appears as if our forefather’s shed blood for no reason,” he said.

“We are affected by [our leaders] abusing power due to high-mindedness and dictatorship.

“Without Samoa, there would be no leaders and the people should be well aware of that, the power in which is being abused by these leaders was given to them by us, the members of the public.”

Perhaps Monday’s homily dispossessed him of the conviction that he has a divine right to the Prime Minister’s chair.

It is impossible that Tuilaepa does not realise that his recent actions have sown division in this country.

The government’s recent decree that there be no public celebration of Independence Day clearly reflected a political fear of that day’s symbolism. The notional excuse provided, that large gatherings posed a risk to the public health, was undermined completely the day before when the Prime Minister addressed more than one thousand political supporters.

To have the head of your faith tell hurtful and shabby truths about your conduct must, even for a man of Tuilaepa’s bravado, be a wounding experience. For the sake of the country’s immediate future, we must hope against every indication it was also, deep down, a humbling one.

The Samoa Observer editorial of 2 June 2021. Republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Samoa’s Court of Appeal (CA) ruled yesterday that Article 44(1A) of the Constitution requires that six women should sit in Parliament. With all due respect, I believe that the CA’s decision was incorrect.

This is on the grounds that the CA has overreached its powers by encroaching on the law-making powers of Parliament and has made an unpragmatic (or impractical) decision that has now prolonged and further complicated Samoa’s constitutional crisis.

While the CA’s decision is final and cannot be appealed, I believe that it is still important that this decision be critiqued because the decision has set a dangerous precedent for future judges interpreting the Constitution — a precedent which essentially signals to them that they can disregard the clear and unequivocal words of the Constitution and insert their own words as they see fit.

To be clear, nothing in this critique should be taken as my disapproval or dissatisfaction with the fact that more women are now required to sit in Parliament.

It goes without saying that having only six women in a Parliament with 51 seats is shameful for any country and is representative of a deeply entrenched gender inequity problem in Samoa that must be addressed.

However, I believe that it is important for all Samoans to understand both the dangerous precedent that has been set by the CA and the wider implications of the decision on Samoa’s constitutional crisis.

Accordingly, I set out three reasons here why I believe that that the CA’s decision was incorrect:

1. The CA encroached on the law-making powers of Parliament by ignoring the explicit wording of Article 44 of the Constitution
As stated in the Supreme Court’s judgment, the court’s function is to “give primary attention to the words used, and the Court does not have the power and ability to go beyond the clear and unequivocal words used”. This function was made clear in three previous landmark Court of Appeal cases on constitutional interpretation: Attorney-General v Saipaia Olomalu, Mulitalo v Attorney General, and Jackson & Ors v Attorney General.

This statement of the court’s function recognises the fundamental importance of the doctrine of separation of powers in any democracy. The doctrine of separation of powers follows that it is only for the democratically elected Parliament to make and amend the law (including the Constitution) and the courts, as the unelected independent body, should only interpret and apply the law as Parliament intended and not make or amend the law themselves.

In this case, the “clear and unequivocal words” of Article 44(1A)(a) that the Court of Appeal had to apply are: “…women Members of the Legislative Assembly shall: (a) consist of a minimum of 10 percent of the Members of the Legislative Assembly specified under clause (1) which for the avoidance of doubt is presently 5”.

Therefore, the CA’s decision to ignore the explicit wording of Article 44(1A) demonstrates that it consciously chose not to take the correct approach to interpret the Constitution that has been laid down in key landmark cases.

In the CA’s judgment, they state that “there is a principled way to resolve the two ideas which are presently before the court…guided by well-established principles of interpretation from earlier rulings of this Court”.

In my view, the CA’s approach to constitutional interpretation was not at all “principled”, but bizarre and dubious in a way that hopefully would not be adopted by any courts after them. This dubious approach was supported and encouraged by the arguments submitted by counsel for the appellants, that in my view, were insincere and unduly motivated by political gain.

In adopting this dubious approach, the CA deliberately ignored the great (if not determinative) significance of the passing of the Constitution Amendment Act 2019. This 2019 Act amended Article 44 to increase the number of seats in Parliament from 49 to 51 specifically for the “2021 general elections”

If they gave proper consideration to the impact of the 2019 Act, the CA would have recognised that if Parliament wanted to increase the minimum number of seats for women to six, they would have changed “five” to “six” while amending Article 44 for the “2021 general elections” when they had the chance. However, Parliament did not do this, and the courts are not authorised to do this for them.

Parliament’s choice to leave “five” in Article 44(1A)(a) untouched while amending other parts of the Article 44 specifically should be taken as a clear indication that they intended the minimum number of women to remain “five” and not “six” for the “2021 general elections”. Again, it should be emphasised that under the doctrine of the separation of powers, only Parliament can amend the Constitution as the democratically elected body – not the unelected judiciary.

In an attempt to reason or justify their disregard for the clear and unambiguous wording of the Constitution, the CA looked to the overall purpose of Article 44(1A) and said that: “We consider that Article 44 1A [of the constitution] is ambiguous as to the ideas it promotes and that primacy should be given to whichever of the competing ideas best promotes the establishment of human rights practice in Samoa.”

However, the CA knew, or should have known, that it is not for them, as a body of unelected apolitical justices, to consider political matters like what “best promotes the establishment of human rights practice in Samoa”. It is only for Parliament to do so as the democratically elected body which has been chosen by the people of Samoa to debate and legislate on these political issues.

This particular separation of powers is in place for a very good reason — Parliament is the only body that has the capabilities, time and resources to consider submissions from people in Samoa, (including experts and groups specialising in the relevant issues) in order to make the best laws possible that represent the will of the people. In contrast, the courts do not have the capabilities, time and resources to fully consider matters of great importance before making or amending the law (including the Constitution).

More fundamentally, judges and justices of the courts have not been elected by the people or appointed by elected officials based on their political views or sensibilities as MPs have. In fact, they have the constitutional mandate to act apolitically and objectively when interpreting and applying the law.

Therefore, I believe that the CA’s decision sets a dangerous precedent for other courts to possibly follow, where they have signalled to other judges and justices who’ll interpret the Constitution that they’re permitted to disregard clear and unequivocal words of the Constitution and insert their own words as they see fit.

2. The CA has encroached on the law-making powers of Parliament by creating its own process for Article 44(1A)

Another major part of the CA’s decision is the finding that a sixth woman can only be added only after all petitions and potential byelections have been completed.

For reasons similar to the ones I have given above, I argue that the CA’s creation of a process for Article 44(1A) was an overreach of their powers because it is only for Parliament to design and explicitly set out this process in the Constitution or any relevant legislation (i.e. the Electoral Act).

This was rightfully respected by Justice Tuatagaloa and Justice Vaai in the Supreme Court, who observed in their joint judgment that Parliament needed to provide:

“Some clarity as to the ‘process’ to be followed when Article 44(1A) is activated. There is no process provided in regards to a woman candidate appointed pursuant to Article 44(1A). Section 84 of the Electoral Act refers to successful candidates or elected candidates. Section 2 of the Electoral Act defines the word ‘election’ means the election of a Member in a general election or byelection to represent a constituency. The woman candidate coming in through Article 44(1A) is (in our view) not ‘elected’.”

Here, Justice Tuatagaloa and Justice Vaai acknowledge that Parliament (in 2013 and 2019) unfortunately did not provide a clear process for the activation of Article 44(1A). However, both justices chose not to go beyond their constitutional powers to engineer and create this process themselves.

Instead, they appreciated that it is only appropriate for Parliament to create this process lawfully and transparently after they have taken the time to fully consider the merits of different options and ideas.

Unfortunately, the CA did not show such respect for Parliament and the separation of powers and decided to engineer and create their own process for Article 44(1A) in less than three days.

In my view, the CA should have simply interpreted the clear and unambiguous words of Article 44(1A) as mentioned above, and stated that it was therefore unnecessary for them to discuss the process as this was a matter for Parliament to determine.

While the CA attempted to design their process with some regard to the practical realities surrounding election petitions, counter petitions and potential byelections — it was still wrong for them to create this process in the fraught context of a dispute in which arguments from parties, namely the appellants, are motivated by political gain.

Therefore, it would not be surprising if the rushed and unprincipled manner in which the CA created the process provides even more confusion, ambiguity, conflict and controversy in the near or distant future. In any case, it is hoped that the new Parliament takes the time needed to fix the problems with Article 44(1A), before designing a new process following its activation, fairly and democratically.

3. The CA’s process for Article 44 is unpragmatic for prolonging and further complicating Samoa’s constitutional crisis

Aside from the issues with the CA’s problematic interpretation of the Constitution, the CA’s decision should also be criticised as being unpragmatic (or in other words, impractical) for having the effect of prolonging and further complicating Samoa’s constitutional crisis.

The CA’s finding that a sixth woman can only be added after all petitions and potential byelections have been completed (and there are still only five women MPs), means that the addition of another woman MP could be several months away. This is due to the sheer volume of petitions that the courts are due to consider next week, a reality the CA was no doubt aware of.

While the courts are not necessarily required to be influenced by what is pragmatic and best for the general wellbeing and smooth running of the country, it is hoped that they at least do not go out of their way to make decisions that would create further uncertainty and delay in a country suffering from an already drawn out constitutional crisis.

Of course, there is already a degree of uncertainty around which party would hold the majority of seats due to the unprecedented number of petitions that have been filed and are yet to be heard,

However, adding the potential activation of Article 44(1A) to the mix does not help things at all. This has already been seen by how both the leaders of the FAST party and the HRPP have interpreted the CA’s decision to mean that their parties hold the majority in judgement and should be able to govern until the election petitions and any potential by-elections are completed.

In my view, had the CA interpreted Article 44(1A) in the correct, honest and principled manner (to find that the minimum number of seats for women is “five” and not six) this would not be a legitimate dispute as the leader of the HRPP would not have any real reason to believe that a sixth woman MP could be added as a 52nd seat in parliament in their favour.

FAST would then have a clearer path for transitioning into the government — a path which I believe they legitimately have because in my view, their convening of parliament was legitimate and constitutional in the extraordinary circumstances Samoa was facing. [NOTE: Although the constitutionality of FAST’s swearing-in on 24 May 2021 is another matter due to be heard by the courts on Friday, I have argued in a previous opinion piece that their swearing-in was constitutional and that the courts should declare this when they do rule on this case — most likely sometime next week.]

Another practical problem the CA could have (and should have) avoided was the risk of creating an even-numbered hung Parliament of 52, with each party having 26 seats. When Article 44(1A) was introduced in 2013, the parliament of that day (and any day up to the 2021 general election) didn’t foresee that its activation could lead to an even-numbered hung parliament which could create major issues in the future. For example, a hung 52 seated parliament (with 26 seats for both parties) could lead the Head of State to use their powers under Article 63 to dissolve parliament and call for a new general election on the grounds that the office of the Prime Minister has vacant beyond a “reasonable period” of time (Article 63(2)) or that the Prime Minister does not command the majority in parliament (Article 63(3)). With due respect, it can only be hoped that this wasn’t the underlying motivation behind the CA’s decision.

In any case, there is an urgent need for a government to come into power to govern Samoa. This is not only because Samoa is in a global pandemic, but also because the government should have already set and announced its annual budget by this time in the year. Therefore, the CA’s decision shows an unfortunate lack of pragmatism for which the people of Samoa will continue to bear the costs.

A case of ‘judicial activism’?
Some might celebrate and defend the CA’s decision as a case of “judicial activism” because it was apparently decided in the interests of gender equality and human rights in Samoa.

“Judicial activism” is a term that refers to when judges go outside their apolitical and objective roles to become “activists” in the courtroom pursuing their political agendas. They do this by interpreting and applying laws in a way that is obviously incorrect and contrary to established legal principles because they believe that the outcome would be morally unacceptable and unjust according to their political beliefs if they did not.

One key instance of “judicial activism” in New Zealand was in the 1985 case of Finnigan v New Zealand Rugby Football. In this case, the Court of Appeal of NZ disregarded well established legal principles in order to prevent the All Blacks from touring South Africa during the nation’s apartheid era.

It is well known now that the justices hearing this case were influenced not only by anti-apartheid protests outside the courtroom but by their own values and beliefs against South Africa’s racist system.

Of course, anyone committed to anti-racism (and the fundamental human right to freedom from discrimination) would not question or fault the Court of Appeal of NZ for being judicial activists in the Finnigan case. However, in my view, the CA’s decision should not be seen or understood as a legitimate and justified case of “judicial activism” like that in Finnigan.

Some may disagree and argue that the need to have six women (rather than five) in Parliament is a critically urgent and important human rights and social justice issue that is analogous or comparable to the moral dilemma the NZ justices faced in the Finnigan case.

However, if anything, this litigation has shown that Article 44(1A) is a deeply flawed mechanism for ensuring the representation of women in Parliament and upholding Samoa’s obligations under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). In my view, instead of further complicating a deeply flawed mechanism during a constitutional crisis, the CA should have upheld the observations of Justice Tuatagaloa and Justice Vaai in the Supreme Court to allow Parliament (and the people of Samoa whose voices they represent) to improve Samoa’s deeply entrenched gender inequity issue in the fair and transparent manner that is expected of a democratic state.

In terms of what a new gender-based quota system for Samoa would look like, it is clear that the new Parliament will need to pay closer attention to the laws and experiences of other democratic countries that have introduced similar gender-based quota laws, such as Finland, Sweden, Norway, and Denmark who have since achieved an average of 40 percent women in their parliaments.

It’s also important that the new Parliament tackle deeply entrenched gender inequity in Samoan politics more broadly. A 2015 report on “Political Representation and Women’s Empowerment in Samoa” by the Centre for Samoan Studies at the National University of Samoa (NUS) found that Article 44(1A) would “not address what this research found to be the core issue: the barriers to women’s equal participation in local government” and that Samoa does not have gender parity laws and candidate pre-selection mechanisms that other countries like France, Timor-Leste, Senegal and Rwanda have introduced to increase the number of women in their parliaments.

Similarly, Kiki Matire has commented that while Article 44(1A) would increase the representation of women in Samoa’s parliament, “much more needs to be done to address the cultural and tangible obstacles to women as political leaders”.

Fuimaono Dylan Asafo is a law lecturer at the Faculty of Law at the University of Auckland. He holds a Master of Laws from Harvard University and a Master of Laws (First Class Honours) from the University of Auckland. This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

By RNZ Pacific

The group known as the Nauru 19 will go back to court next week in what will be the first sitting of the Nauru Court of Appeal.

The Nauru 19 were charged over an anti-government protest more than three years ago and are facing an appeal from the Nauru government.

The group, which includes a former Nauru president, had sought a permanent stay on legal proceedings against them, arguing the trial process dragged on too long and that the government had not met a court directed order to pay some of the expenses of the group’s Australian lawyers.

Justice Geoff Muecke, who was brought in by the Nauru government to hear the case, granted a permanent stay on the proceedings, saying the government’s conduct throughout had been a “shameful affront to the rule of law”.

Now the government is appealing this decision.

The Nauru Court of Appeal was set up after the government secretly ended its use of the Australian High Court as Nauru’s appellate court earlier this year.

-Partners-

The Nauru 19 believe this move was another attempt to deny them a fair trial.

The judges hearing the appeal are high ranking members of Pacific judiciaries – Tonga’s Chief Justice Michael Scott, Kiribati Chief Justice John Muria and PNG Supreme Court judge Nicholas Kirriwom.

This article is republished under the Pacific Media Centre’s content partnership with Radio New Zealand.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz