Ninety-five New Zealand lawyers — including nine king’s counsel — have signed a letter demanding Prime Minister Christopher Luxon, Foreign Minister Winston Peters and two other ministers urge the government to take a stronger stand against Israel’s “catastrophic” actions in Gaza.

The letter has been sent amid rising tensions in the region, following Israel’s surprise attacks on Iran last Friday, and Iran’s retaliatory attacks.

A statement by the Justice For Palestine advocacy group said the letter’s signatories represented all levels of seniority in the legal community, including senior barristers, law firm partners, legal academics, and in-house lawyers.

The letter cited the 26 July 2024 joint statement by the prime ministers of Canada, Australia and New Zealand which acknowledged: “The situation in Gaza is catastrophic. The human suffering is unacceptable. It cannot continue.”

“But it has continued,” said the letter.  “The plight of the civilian population in Gaza has significantly deteriorated, featuring steadily escalating levels of bombardment, forced displacement of civilians, blockades of aid and deliberate targeting of hospitals, aid workers and journalists.”

The same month, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) had declared Israel’s continued presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory to be unlawful.

Obligations under international law
In September last year, New Zealand voted in favour of a UN General Assembly resolution calling on all UN member states to comply with their obligations under international law and take concrete steps to address Israel’s ongoing presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, said the Justice For Palestine statement.

At the time, New Zealand had noted it expected Israel to take meaningful steps towards compliance with international law, including withdrawal from the Occupied Palestinian Territory. The letter stated that Israel had done nothing of the sort.

The letter points out that last month independent UN experts had demanded immediate international intervention to “end the violence or bear witness to the annihilation of the Palestinian population in Gaza.”

UN experts have observed more than 52,535 deaths, of which 70 percent continue to be women and children, said the statement.

The UN Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator, Tom Fletcher, had called for a response “as humanitarians” urging “Humanity, the law and reason must prevail”.

The Justice For Palestine letter urged the government to consider a stronger response, including:

• condemning Israel’s unlawful presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory,
• reviewing immediately all diplomatic and political and economic ties with Israel, and
• imposing further sanctions after New Zealand had imposed sanctions on two extremist Israeli politicians.

Rising concern over Israeli breaches
One of the letter’s signatories, barrister Max Harris, said:

Aedeen Boadita-Cormican, another barrister, who signed the letter, said: “The government could do more to follow through on how it has voted at the United Nations and what it has said internationally.”

“This letter shows the depth of concern in the legal community about Israel’s actions,” she added.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Two Palestinian resistance groups have condemned “the brutal assault” on prisoners at Ofer Prison, saying it was “barbaric criminal behaviour that reflects the fascist and terrorist nature of” Israel.

In the joint statement, Hamas and Palestine Islamic Jihad (PIJ) called the attack a “miserable attempt” by Israel “to restore its shattered prestige”, reports Al Jazeera.

They called on the world to expose “these inhuman crimes against the prisoners”, which “blatantly violate all international conventions and norms”.

The statement called on the international community to intervene to protect the “prisoners, stop criminal violations against them, document them and work to hold the criminal occupation leaders accountable”.

The statement came after Palestinian authorities said Israeli forces had raided a section of Ofer Prison, west of Ramallah in the occupied West Bank, and assaulted detainees.

“Prisoners were beaten and sprayed with gas,” the Palestinian Prisoners Media Office said.

Persistent serious allegations of torture and abuse of Palestinian prisoners — many who have not been charged or are held on administrative detention — and beatings right up until the release of detainees under the ceasefire have been made over all six exchange events so far.

Medical director severely tortured
Last week, lawyers representing Kamal Adwan Hospital’s medical director Dr Hussam Abu Safiya met him for the first time since he was detained by Israeli forces in north Gaza last December 27.

He told them he was severely tortured with electric shocks and was being denied needed medication.

Lawyer spells out torture allegations over Israeli detention of doctor.  Video: Al Jazeera

Samir Al-Mana’ama, a lawyer with the Al Mazan Center for Human Rights, described his brutal torture in a failed attempt to “extract a confession” from him in an interview with Al Jazeera.

Al-Mana’ama said Dr Abu Safiya suffered from “an enlarged heart muscle and from high blood pressure” and was beaten up and refused treatment for the heart condition.

Transferred to Ofter Prison on January 9, he was held in solitary confinement for 25 days and interrogated nonstop by the Israeli army, Israeli intelligence and police, the lawyer added.

There was “no legal justification” for Abu Safia’s arrest and no evidence against him, the lawyer said.

Since the interview, Israeli authorities said he was being held under an “unlawful combatant” law — despite his status as a civilian doctor — stripping him of any rights as a detainee.

Al Jazeera’s Nour Odeh, reporting from Amman in Jordan, said the doctor was one of hundreds of medical workers taken from Gaza by Israeli forces to the notorious Sde Teiman detention camp and other Israeli military prisons.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Marwan Bishara, Al Jazeera’s senior political analyst, has condemned Israel’s extensive airstrikes on Syrian installations — reportedly 500 times in 72 hours, comparing them to historic Israeli actions justified as “security measures”.

He criticised the hypocrisy of Israel’s security pretext endorsed by Western powers.

Asked why Israel was bombing Syria and encroaching on its territory just days after the ousting of the Bashar al-Assad regime after 54 years in power, he told Al Jazeera: “Because it can get away with it.”

Bishara explained that Israel aimed to destabilise and weaken neighbouring countries for its own security.

He noted that the new Syrian administration was overwhelmed and unable to respond effectively.

Bishara highlighted that regional powers like Egypt and Saudi Arabia had condemned Israel’s actions, even though Western countries had been largely silent.

He said Israel was “taking advantage” of the chaos to “settle scores”.

“One can go back 75 years, 80 years, and look at Israel since its inception,” he said.

“What has it been? In a state of war. Continuous, consistent state of war, bombing countries, destabilising countries, carrying out genocide, war crimes, and ethnic cleansing.

“All of it for the same reason — presumably it’s security.

“Under the pretext of security, Israel would carry [out] the worst kind of violations of international law, the worst kind of ethnic cleansing, worst kind of genocide.

“And that’s what we have seen it do.

“Now, certainly in this very particular instance it’s taking advantage of the fact that there is a bit of chaos, if you will, slash change, dramatic change in Syria after 50 years of more of the same in order to settle scores with a country that it has always deemed to be a dangerous enemy, and that is Syria.

“So I think the idea of decapitating, destabilising, undercutting, undermining Syria and Syria’s national security, will always be a main goal for Israel.”

In an Auckland Tāmaki Makaurau solidarity rally today, protesters condemned Israel’s bombing of Syria and also called on New Zealand’s Christopher Luxon-led coalition government to take a stronger stance against Israel and to pressure major countries to impose UN sanctions against Tel Aviv.

A prominent lawyer, Labour Party activist and law school senior academic at Auckland University of Technology, Dr Myra Williamson, spoke about the breakthrough in international law last month with the International Criminal Court (ICC) arrest warrants being issued against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza.

Lawyer and law school academic Dr Myra Williamson speaking at the Auckland rally today.  Video: Asia Pacific Report

“What you have to be aware of is that the ICC is being threatened — the individuals are being threatened and the court itself is being threatened, mainly by the United States,” she told the solidarity crowd in Te Komititanga Square.

“Personal threats to the judges, to the prosecutor Karim Khan.

“So you need to be vocal and you need to talk to people over the summer about how important that work is. Just to get the warrants issued was a major achievement and the next thing is to get them on trial in The Hague.”

ICC Annual Meeting — court under threat.      Video: Al Jazeera

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Members of the King’s Counsel, some of New Zealand’s most senior legal minds, say the controversial Treaty Principles Bill “seeks to rewrite the Treaty itself” and are calling on the prime minister and the coalition government to “act responsibly now and abandon” it.

More than 40 KCs have written to the prime minister and attorney-general outlining their “grave concerns” about the substance of the Treaty Principles Bill and its wider implications for the country’s constitutional arrangements.

The bill is set to have its first reading in the House on Thursday, and has led to nationwide protests, with Prime Minister Christopher Luxon himself calling it “divisive”.

Its architect, ACT leader David Seymour, has said the purpose is to provide certainty and clarity and to “promote a national conversation about their place in our constitutional arrangements”.

“I can see why they don’t like the Treaty Principles Bill. Everyone gets a say, even if you’re not a KC,” Seymour said in a statement.

“The debate over the Treaty has until this point been dominated by a small number of judges, senior public servants, academics, and politicians.”

He said the select committee process would finally “democratise” the debate.

Co-governance, ethnic quotas
“The courts and the Waitangi Tribunal have been able to develop principles that have been used to justify actions that are contrary to the principle of equal rights. Those actions include co-governance in the delivery of public services and ethnic quotas in public institutions.

“The Treaty Principles Bill provides an opportunity for New Zealanders — rather than the courts and the Waitangi Tribunal — to have a say on what the Treaty means. Did the Treaty give different rights to different groups, or does every citizen have equal rights? I believe all New Zealanders deserve to have a say on that question,” Seymour said.

The senior members of the independent bar view the introduction of the bill (and the intended referendum) as “wholly inappropriate as a way of addressing such an important and complex constitutional issue”.

The letter states the existing principles (including partnership, active protection, equity and redress) are “designed to reflect the spirit and intent of the Treaty as a whole and the mutual obligations and responsibilities of the parties”. They say the principles now represent “settled law”.

The letter said the coalition’s bill sought to “redefine in law the meaning of te Tiriti, by replacing the existing ‘Treaty principles’ with new Treaty principles which are said to reflect the three articles of te Tiriti”.

The lawyers say those proposed principles do not reflect te Tiriti, and, by “imposing a contested definition of the three articles, the bill seeks to rewrite the Treaty itself”.

The Treaty Principles Bill, they say, would have the “effect of unilaterally changing the meaning of te Tiriti and its effect in law, without the agreement of Māori as the Treaty partner”.

Historical settlements
The proposed principle 2 “retrospectively limits Māori rights to those that existed at 1840”, they said, and the bill states that “if those rights ‘differ from the rights of everyone’, then they are only recognised to the extent agreed in historical Treaty settlements with the Crown”.

The lawyers said that erased the Crown’s Article 2 guarantee to Māori of tino rangatiratanga.

“By recognising Māori rights only when incorporated into Treaty settlements with the Crown, this proposed principle also attempts to exclude the courts, which play a crucial role in developing the common law and protecting indigenous and minority rights.”

They also explained the proposed principle 3 did not “recognise the fundamental Article 2 guarantee to Māori of the right to be Māori and to have their tikanga Māori (customs, values and customary law) recognised and protected in our law”.

They said it was not for the government of the day to “retrospectively and unilaterally reinterpret constitutional treaties”.

“This would offend the basic principles which underpin New Zealand’s representative democracy.”

They added that the bill would cause significant legal confusion and uncertainty, “inevitably resulting in protracted litigation and cost”, and would have the “opposite effect of its stated purpose of providing certainty and clarity”.

In regards to the wider process and impact of the bill, they pointed to a lack of meaningful engagement as well as the finding by the Waitangi Tribunal that the Bill was a breach of the Treaty.

The ACT Party has long argued the original articles have been interpreted by the courts, the Waitangi Tribunal and successive governments — over decades — in a way that has amplified their significance and influence beyond the original intent.

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

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

The Human Rights Lawyers Association (PAHAM) Papua has demanded a “thorough and impartial” investigation into the death of Michelle Kurisi, a civilian involved in gathering information about a New Zealand pilot held hostage by West Papuan pro-independence fighters.

She was tragically killed on August 28 in Kolawa District, Lanny Jaya Regency, in the Mountainous Papua Province.

Following Kurisi’s killing, a statement claiming responsibility for the act was made by the West Papua National Liberation Army (TPNPB) spokesperson, Sebby Sambom.

The TPNPB alleged that the victim had collaborated with security forces and had engaged in spying activities during her visit to Nduga, where she was collecting data on refugees, including information related to the release of the New Zealand pilot Philip Mehrtens who has been held hostage by a TPNPB group since February 7.

Gustaf R. Kawer, chair of PAHAM Papua, said that the focus of the investigation should not be to find a scapegoat or advance a politically motivated narrative.

Instead, it should prioritise an independent inquiry that delved into the victim’s daily life, her occupation, work-related relationships, and her mission to Nduga, including identifying the institutions or parties she was collaborating with.

He said it was crucial to determine who was with her until she met her tragic end.

‘Close ties with police officers’
“Based on PAHAM Papua’s digital tracing and monitoring efforts,” Gustaf Kawer said in a media release, “it appears that the victim had close ties with several high-ranking police officers in Papua and was actively involved in various conflicts in the region.”

Therefore there was a pressing need for an in-depth, impartial investigation into Michelle Kurisi’s death by a neutral entity.

This would help prevent claims and narratives driven by political interests.

Kawer stressed the importance of gathering witnesses and evidence — including the victim’s digital footprint — her recent activities, and communications with various parties, particularly during her trip to Nduga.

These elements were critical in unravelling the motive behind her murder, he said.

Furthermore, the victim’s participation in a a webinar titled “Indonesia Walk Out Why?” hosted by Bishop Joshua Tewuh was noteworthy.

During this event, she expressed support for the United Liberation Movement for West Papua (ULMWP) delegation and criticised the Indonesian government strongly.

Speculation about motive
Given her recent track record, there was speculation about the motive behind her murder, Kawer said.

It was possible that her death was not solely orchestrated by the TPNPB but could involve groups with vested interests in Papua, aiming to silence her for her statements or to manipulate the narrative surrounding the Papua conflict.

In light of these circumstances, Gustaf Kawer urged the Indonesian government to establish an independent team, through the Indonesian National Human Rights Commission (Komnas HAM), to investigate cases of extrajudicial killings thoroughly.

This action was essential to prevent unfounded claims and protect civilians in Papua, whether by the TPNPB or the security forces,he said.

Republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Legal proceedings are expected to take place if the temporary ban on the songs of Jason Suisui — popularly known as Jayrex — is not lifted, warns his lawyer Philip Tabuchi.

“In the event this temporary ban is not uplifted [sic], our client will have no choice but to take the next most appropriate step, including commencing legal proceedings,” said senior associate Tabuchi of Young and Williams Lawyers in response to questions raised by the PNG Post-Courier in an email.

The National Censorship Office took a firm step against gender-based violence by placing a temporary ban on all songs by the popular Pacific reggae artist Jason Suisui from New Ireland following complaints of assault and ongoing emotional abuse by his partner of four years and her family.

The singer had been earlier charged with causing grievous bodily harm, emotional distress and mental abuse through numerous phone calls, text message and in the lyrics of his songs.

Relatives close to the woman told the Post-Courier that she was in a fragile state and was often suicidal.

“Just like his legion of fans throughout the country, and other local artists, Jayrex was shocked to learn that the Office of Censorship had placed what they described as a temporary ban on his very passion – his music,” said his lawyer.

Following communication with the Office of Censorship on this undated temporary ban, senior associate Tabuchi said it was intended that logic and common sense would now prevail, and the temporary ban would be lifted.

“Jayrex is appreciative of the massive support he has received from all the fans throughout the country, including from other artists,” Tabuchi said.

“Thank you for all of your kind words and support,” Jayrex said through the lawyer.

“I am confident we will get through this. Bai yumi stap yet! Yumi sanap strong wantem! (We’ll stop this! We’ll stand up really strong!).”

Phoebe Gwangilo is a PNG Post-Courier journalist. Republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Transparency International Papua New Guinea has welcomed the conviction of lawyer Paul Paraka as the police confirm they are widening the investigation into the fraud case.

The NGO admits the depths of Paraka’s activities, revealed by the case, are very worrying.

Paraka, who had operated his own eponymous law firm, was convicted of misappropriating 162 million kina (about NZ$75 million) in government funds, between 2007 and 2011.

Transparency PNG spokesperson, Peter Aitsi, said the evidence outlined the complex structures that Paraka and others put together.

Significant case
He said it was a very significant case because of the amount of public money involved.

“And those are just the funds that have been identified within this case itself and paid to different parties as a result of Paraka’s activities.

“From a TI point of view we would encourage the agencies to continue to develop the evidence and if there are further charges to be laid against individuals then we would encourage them to ensure they uphold their duty and responsibility,” Aitsi said.

Paraka’s law firm, which he claimed was the biggest in the country, was engaged by the Attorney-General and Solicitor-General’s office in 2000, but this arrangement ceased in 2006.

However, from 2007 the state was still making payments to legal firms linked to Paraka.

Investigations have seesawed for 10 years and led to the replacement of the Attorney-General, the shutting down of the police fraud unit investigating the matter, and acccusations of politicians being involved.

Meanwhile, Paul Paraka threatened legal action amid claims the issues were simply administrative matters.

Police action
Police Commissioner David Manning has confirmed an investigation into fraud, money laundering and misappropriation following Paraka’s conviction.

Manning said the Paraka case attracted significant national interest due to the huge amounts of public money involved in these corrupt dealings.

“The way and manner in which these funds were syphoned through the Department of Finance to various law firms, who would then transfer this money to Mr Paraka himself, has been the subject of public outrage,” he said.

Manning said police will continue to pursue, investigate, charge and arrest those involved, and to recoup all money lost in these illegal deals.

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

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Who’s broken the law? “Separation of powers” and all that stuff.

Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum’s hour-long news conference on Saturday, January 21, seems mostly to have followed the usual FijiFirst party format.

He pontificated at length while his party’s MPs stood silently behind him.

From what I could tell, Sayed-Khaiyum’s speech was a mixture of political criticism and claims about the law. The politicians can respond to the political rhetoric. But claims that the government has broken the law are a more serious matter.

Sayed-Khaiyum has raised a number of complaints suggesting that the new government has broken the law. He has not been very clear about why this is so. However, for the record, let’s go over these complaints (or at least what he seems to be suggesting):

that former Constitutional Offices Commission members were unlawfully removed from office

Wrong. The Commissioners were asked to resign. They did so. No law prevents them from resigning. If they had refused to resign, they would have remained in place (as others have done).

Sayed-Khaiyum says that the PM had “no authority” to ask them to resign. Wrong. Nobody needs “authority” to ask anyone else to commit a voluntary act. The former Constitutional Offices Commissioners are not the property of the FijiFirst party. No law has been broken.

that the Minister for Home Affairs should not have asked the Commissioner of Police to resign

Wrong. It is a free country. The minister may make any request he wants — and the commissioner may accept or refuse that request.

The commissioner refused the minister’s request, saying he wanted the Constitutional Office Commission process be followed. The commissioner remains in place.

No law has been broken.

that prayers at government functions breach the Constitution

Sayed-Khaiyum read out s.4 of the Constitution (“Secular state”) and claimed that at government functions prayers were now only offered in one religion (presumably the Christian one).

To suggest that this is something new — that this did not happen under the FijiFirst party government — is fantasy. And I too wish that those who offer prayers were sometimes a little more sensitive to other religions.

But that is not the point. The Constitution does not tell any of us how to pray.

No law has been broken.

“not referring to all citizens as Fijians”

The Constitution may refer to all citizens as “Fijians”. But the Constitution also guarantees freedom of speech. There is no law that says we must all call each other “Fijians”. We may call each other what we want.

No law has been broken.

replacing boards of statutory authorities before expiry of their terms

Sayed-Khaiyum should be specific. Which boards is he referring to? If board members have resigned and been replaced, then what I have already said about resignations also applies.

For a number of statutory bodies the minister has, under the relevant law, the power to appoint board members. This power generally includes the power to dismiss them.

Replacing boards or board members mid-term is certainly nothing new. Sayed-Khaiyum may recall a recent example while he was Minister for Housing. He requested the entire Housing Authority board to resign before the expiry of their terms (and they complied).

No law has been broken.

taking back ATS [Air Terminal Services] workers. Sayed-Khaiyum seems to think that because a court decided that ATS is not required to take the workers back, ATS cannot do so.

Wrong. Any parties to litigation — including employers and employees — can decide to settle their differences at any time — including after a court ruling. The new government has requested ATS to take its former employees back. If ATS has a legal problem with this, no doubt it will tell government.

No law has been broken.

that using vernacular languages in Parliament breaches Standing Orders

Other than for the formal process of electing the Speaker and the Prime Minister, Parliament has not yet even sat yet.

The new government wants to allow the use of vernacular languages in Parliament. The current Standing Orders do not permit this.

So, to allow the use of vernacular languages in Parliament, the government will have to propose changes to the Standing Orders and parliamentarians will have to vote for them. That is normal procedure (Standing Order 128).

No law has been broken.

“separation of powers”

Under the FijiFirst party government, this phrase seemed to be thrown around to justify anything. For example, the Parliament Secretariat would frequently refuse to allow opposition MPs to ask questions of government ministers because of “the separation of powers”.

This justification made no sense. Section 91 of the Constitution requires ministers to be accountable to Parliament.

In layman’s terms, “the separation of powers” means only that the legislature (Parliament), the executive (Cabinet and civil servants) and the judiciary (judges and magistrates) should each “stay in their lanes”.

They should not interfere in each other’s functions. Sayed-Khaiyum has made no specific allegations that the new government has breached this concept. What law does he say has been broken?

FijiFirst and the Constitution

Sayed-Khaiyum’s FijiFirst party government applied the Constitution as it suited them.

It never set up the Accountability and Transparency Commission that the Constitution required (s.121) It never set up a Ministerial Code of Conduct as the Constitution required (s.149).

It never set up a Freedom of Information Act as the Constitution required (s.150). This was, after all, his own government’s constitution.

His government treated Parliament — the elected representatives of Fiji’s people — with contempt. Almost all of its laws were passed under urgency (Standing Order 51).

Typically, parliamentarians got two days’ notice of what new laws the government was proposing, sometimes less. That meant no one had time to review the laws
or consult the people on them.

The FFP government treated the people’s laws as its own property. Sayed-Khaiyum complains about board members being removed and public service appointment rules not being followed. He says nothing about the numerous arbitrary terminations of many public servants under the FijiFirst party government, including the Solicitor-General and the Government Statistician.

It was no less than the Fiji Law Society president who this week described rule of law under the FijiFirst government as “sometimes hanging by a thread”.

Against this background, not many lawyers are prepared to listen to Sayed-Khaiyum lecture us on the law.

#LOCALNEWS Who’s broken the law? “Separation of powers” and all that stuff. Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum’s hour-long news conference on Saturday, January 21, seems mostly to have followed the usual FijiFirst party format. #TimesNews #FijiNews #FijiPol https://t.co/sblh8koJBs

— The Fiji Times (@fijitimes) January 22, 2023

If you’ve got a problem, go to court

The “separation of powers” doctrine is also clear that if you have a problem with the lawfulness of any government action, the courts are there to solve that problem. It is the
courts who decide if anyone has breached the Constitution. It is not the secretary of the opposition political party.

So, if Sayed-Khaiyum has a complaint that the law has been broken, he should do what the rest of us do — take it to court. That is what he frequently told the Opposition to do when it complained about what his government did.

Sayed-Khaiyum has a little more time on his hands now. He is a qualified lawyer with a practising certificate. So — get on with it. Bring your complaints to court, because
that is where they belong. Should Sayed-Khaiyum really be lecturing us about the law?

Finally, Sayed-Khaiyum has still not explained to anyone how, in the space of three days in January, he got himself kicked out of Parliament by accepting a position on the Constitutional Offices Commission — and then had to resign from the Constitutional Offices Commission when asked how he could continue as general secretary of the Fiji First Party.

Should we really be taking legal advice from him?

Richard Naidu is a Suva lawyer and a columnist. The views in this article are not necessarily the views of The Fiji Times. Republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Fiji lawyer and former human rights activist Imrana Jalal has offered a “warning” to her motherland that should people be investigated, prosecuted or dismissed, it must be done within the rule of law.

In a social media posting on her Facebook page, Jalal wrote: “A WARNING to ourselves in Fiji — it’s very important that if people are going to be investigated, dismissed, prosecuted or asked to resign voluntarily (without coercion) whether in a State-Owned Enterprise (SOE) or otherwise; or a commission of inquiry be set up, example, to look at the judiciary, that this all be done within the rule of law.

“There should be no victimisation or targeted prosecutions unless there is genuine evidence by independent investigators.

“I speak with authority on this having been targeted by the former regime personally.

“If we do otherwise, then we are no better than the corrupt regime [that has been] in power for the last 16 years.

“We need to start off the right way or we are tainted from the beginning.”

Jalal, a former Fiji human rights commissioner and previously a gender specialist with the Asia Development Bank, asked those calling for heads to roll to “be careful”.

She is the first woman to be appointed as a special project facilitator of the ADB.

‘Give our fragile democracy a chance’
“Be cautious. Refrain from this type of diatribe. No good will come of it. There can be no restoration to the rule of law like that,” she said.

“Let the government slowly make its way. Give them a chance: step by step we can restore our fragile democracy.”

Prominent Suva lawyer Graham Leung voiced similar sentiment, calling on Fijians to be patient and follow the law. He added that due process must be followed in dismissing or removing people from office.

“Arbitrary and unlawful dismissals must be avoided at all costs. There are constitutional processes for removal for some posts,” Leung said on his Facebook social media page.

“In some cases, there are legally binding contracts in place. Negotiations for early termination of contracts can take place by mutual agreement. These should be carried out professionally without malice or bad faith.

“We would be no better than the last government if we did this. Due process will take time.

“You cannot rectify and address 16 years of bad governance overnight. The change we all voted for will not happen at the press of a button.

“I urge the people of Fiji celebrating the new government’s victory and the removal of the previous authoritarian government to be patient. We will get there eventually.

“Let us not, in the excitement of the change, lose our sense of reason, fairness and logic.

“I completely accept that those [who] have broken the law must be held personally accountable, whether in the courts or according to law.”

Timoci Vula is a Fiji Times reporter. Republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

“My Fiji
I offer a vision which sees this beloved land of ours united in its diversity, forged out of its adversity, and built on trust. I offer you a vision of Fiji which historians will say that, in the midst of tragedy, we found courage and wisdom, and foresight and determination to lead the nation away from the precipice into a prosperous future. I can only hope that my vision for this most wonderful of nations will fulfil its promise. I can only pray that we who have the moment at hand will find the courage, the strength and the determination to let the past be the past and build a nation that will stand not just to 20/20, but down through the centuries.”
— Jai Ram Reddy, 1993

This moment asks a lot of me and all of us. I write these words with a heavy heart but also a sense of great pride and privilege which is only afforded to me because I happen to be the daughter of the lawyer, judge, and Indo-Fijian statesman, Jai Ram Reddy, who died in Auckland last night aged 85.

Historians, political commentators, and analysts will define their narratives about my father. I am a daughter who simply seeks to celebrate and mark his life and legacy with a personal perspective about him, his legal and political career.

I am conscious that many of those who will read this piece are, like me, the descendants of indentured labourers “Girmitiyas”, who were brought from India to Fiji during colonial rule.

Like many of their generation, my grandparents, Pethi and Yenkatamma Reddy were farming folk who wanted a better future for their children. They worked the field and saved with a view to sending their eldest son, Jai Ram, to study law in New Zealand.

Their dreams were realised, and my father was admitted as a barrister and solicitor in 1960.

Further to his admission to the New Zealand bar, Dad returned to Fiji and enjoyed a long and illustrious career as a lawyer. He was the Minister of Justice and Attorney-General of Fiji (during the short-lived Bavadra Labour government of 1987) and President of Fiji’s Court of Appeal in the early 2000s.

I never did have the opportunity to observe my father in the courtroom, but I have heard and read much about his formidable advocacy skills and forensic legal mind. His areas of practice were broad, but he was particularly invested in criminal law and practice.

Unwavering commitment
I understand he could be a pit-bull in the courtroom and had an unwavering commitment to his clients.

In 2003, the United Nations General Assembly elected Dad as a member of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR). He was based in Arusha, Tanzania, and my son and I visited him in 2007.

He was sitting on a bench comprised of two other international jurists, one of whom was the President of the Tribunal, Judge Eric Mose. The four defendants were military men accused of genocide against the Tutsi population in Rwanda during the early 1990s.

On the day we attended his court room, I distinctly recall Dad challenging one of the Canadian advocates on a technical point to which the advocate responded, “Judge Reddy always asks the difficult questions”. He was considered one of the finest judges there.

As a lawyer, I found the proceedings fascinating and as a daughter, I felt very proud.

Of course, none of us are defined solely by our professional life or public profile and it would feel incomplete not to mention some of my father’s other interests. He loved the odd gamble on the horses and as a young child, I recall being dragged to the Ellerslie races on more than a few occasions.

Dad also loved literature, philosophy, and comedy. Those who knew him intimately will recall his reverence for the prose of William Shakespeare and his uncanny ability to recite Shakespearean sonnets and soliloquies — even when his Alzheimer’s was quite advanced.

Interest in philosophy
As a young, idealistic student, he developed an interest in philosophy and his outlook and perspectives were shaped by both Eastern and Western writers and intellectuals. Possessing a dry, acerbic wit, he enjoyed satire and comedy — particularly the British variety — and was an ardent fan of all things involving Monty Python and other comics of that tradition.

He also liked old Hindi songs but loved ghazals the most. He wasn’t the greatest singer but after a couple glasses of red wine, he would sing along to those old melodies with much gusto at dinner parties. It made him happy.

Like all of us, my father’s life was punctuated by both highs and deep sadness. My dear brother Sanjai’s untimely death was devastating for Dad, as it was for all of us. Despite his own grief, he remained a devoted and supportive father and grandfather to his three surviving children and five grandchildren whilse continuing a demanding role as a jurist at the ICTR.

It cannot have been easy in the circumstances. Dad undoubtedly had an intellectual disposition and for much of his life, his interests and preoccupations were principally cerebral in nature. However, with age, he became less preoccupied with such matters and his renowned social reticence, and “short fuse” receded and was replaced by a person who was more relaxed, emotionally accessible and at ease with communicating on a more personal level.

I will treasure the memory of some of conversations we shared in his later years.

As to his political life, Dad was initially a senator in the early 1970s before his election as Leader of the Opposition in 1977. Politically he was a social democrat with liberal instincts. Throughout his long political career, he argued for equity, social justice, and racial equality.

Vehemently opposed to the death penalty on the grounds it offends the inalienable right to life, he, among others, advocated for its abolition in Fiji. He also supported the legitimatisation of same-sex unions and led the parliamentary debate against French nuclear testing in the Pacific.

Committed to multi-culturalism
I suspect; however, my father will ultimately be remembered for his commitment to the values of multi-culturalism and pluralism.

When reflecting on his political legacy, I am cognisant of how urgent and prescient my father’s brand of politics might feel given the rise and global reach of ethnic nationalism and identity politics. Dad firmly believed that leadership in the Fijian context required moral courage, an empathy for “the other” and an acute appreciation of how history and context shaped the political and social fabric of the country.

It is through him; I developed an understanding of the importance of adopting a pluralist approach and working across the political aisle for the greater good of all communities in Fiji.

Similarly, I developed an appreciation of how the colonial legacy of divide and rule cultivated and fostered the deep racial divide, mistrust and communalism which have featured so tragically in Fiji’s political landscape. An appreciation of context is obviously so important, but Dad’s message was that we all share a collective responsibility to reflect, critique and overcome the historical legacies, structures and values which impede the art of empathy and compromise.

Following the military coup of 1987, my father had the singular honour of being the first Indo-Fijian to be invited to speak to the Great Council of Chiefs. It was a seminal moment as Fiji was on the precipice of ratifying a progressive new constitution. In that speech, he talked about the respective fears and interests of both the indigenous Fijian and Indo-Fijian communities.

He also spoke of the importance of power-sharing in the context of a politically and socially fractured Fiji following the military coups in 1987. I quote Dad’s final words from that speech:

“In one of his nation’s darkest hours, that courageous and visionary leader, Franklin Roosevelt, said, and I quote: ‘to some generations much is given; of other generations much is asked. This generation has a rendezvous with destiny.’

“Much was asked of Ratu Cakobau’s generation of Chiefs. Much is asked of this generation of Chiefs. Much is asked of us all.

“Let us therefore gather our courage and set ourselves united to the finishing of the noble task to which our history, our heritage and our motherland now call us. This generation must keep its rendezvous with destiny. And to future generations, much will be given.”

Defining moment squandered
From the perspective of many, that defining moment was squandered and the tragic events which have taken place in Fiji over the past two decades speak volumes. I know how profoundly disappointed my father was that his vision of an inclusive society was mercilessly rebuked by what he described as “narrow-minded partisanship”.

Of course, another military coup then took place, and the rest is history. Notwithstanding those events, may the arc of history bend towards that rendezvous he spoke of on that hopeful occasion.

May his dream of a fully democratised Fiji be realised and let it be a Fiji with fair and accessible rights to political representation, education, and economic parity for all its people.

On this saddest of occasions, it feels fitting to conclude with a quote from that great, visionary civil rights leader Dr Martin Luther King Jr:

“There comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but he must take it because conscience tells him it is right”.

Rest in Peace my dear father.
Om Shanti
Gole ena vakacegu

Helen Nalina Reddy
London

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Amnesty International and Civicus have called on the Fiji government to drop contempt of court charges against a lawyer in Fiji for exercising his right to freedom of expression.

On 27 June 2022, Fiji’s Attorney-General Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum filed charges for contempt of court against senior lawyer and former journalist Richard Naidu for highlighting on social media an error in a court judgment where the word “injection” was used instead of “injunction’.

Amnesty International and Civicus said in a statement the charges were an “excessive and politically motivated response” to pointing out a spelling error in a court judgment and they violated the right to freedom of expression.

The Attorney-General acknowledged that the error pointed out by Richard Naidu was indeed a spelling mistake. He went on to claim that Richard Naidu’s post was malicious and invited others to mock the judiciary, referencing the comments and responses from others on social media.

Amnesty International and Civicus said they opposed the use of contempt of court or similar accusations used by the authorities deemed to amount to “scandalising the court” because this notion was inherently vague, and incompatible with the right to freedom of expression.

They were also not necessary for legitimate public interests (including the orderly proceedings of a court or the judicial process).

This type of contempt of court accusation was also subject to misuse, with penalties including large fines and imprisonment, the statement said.

Freedom of expression protected
“Under international human rights law and standards, the right to freedom of expression is protected. This right includes being allowed to make comments that may be regarded as critical, or even deeply offensive of government institutions, including the judiciary,” the statement said.

“Any restrictions on this right, including the threat of prosecution and punishment for ‘contempt of court’, must therefore be clearly provided for by law, and demonstrably necessary and proportionate for the purpose of protecting specified and legitimate public interests or the rights or reputations of others.

“In its General Comment on Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which provides for freedom of expression, the Human Rights Committee, the UN body charged with overseeing the implementation of the Covenant by its member states, explains that:

“Contempt of court proceedings relating to forms of expression may be tested against the public order (ordre public) ground. In order to comply with paragraph 3, [providing for restrictions on this right] such proceedings and the penalty imposed must be shown to be warranted in the exercise of a court’s power to maintain orderly proceedings. Such proceedings should not in any way be used to restrict the legitimate exercise of defence rights.”

“The maintenance of orderly proceedings” included the protection of the rights of the accused and responding to acts which amount to obstruction of, and interference with, the judicial process, the joint statement said.

“Such powers must not be exercised in a manner that restricts the right to freedom of expression beyond those restrictions provided for in international human rights law.

‘Manifestly disproportionate’
“Pursuing a lawyer with legal punishment for pointing out accurately a spelling mistake in a public court judgment on social media is manifestly disproportionate and a violation of his right to exercise his freedom of expression. It could also be seen as an act of intimidation or harassment.”

Fiji’s civic space rating remained “obstructed”, according to the Civicus Monitor, a research tool the NGO uses to track the state of civil society and civic freedoms in 196 countries.

This was the most recent in a string of cases where legal proceedings have been abused to silence journalists, non-governmental organisations, political opponents, and lawyers.

Naidu faces hefty fines and possible imprisonment should he be convicted of the offences.

Other laws used to stifle freedoms include sedition provisions in the Crimes Act as well as the Public Order (Amendment) Act 2014 that have been used to target journalists, activists and government critics, while other sections of the Public Order Act have been used to arbitrarily restrict peaceful protests.

The Fijian government has resisted calls to allow the UN Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers to visit and assess the situation since 2009 when major judicial reforms were implemented.

“The recent contempt charge undermines the independence of lawyers and the legal profession and will have a chilling effect on freedom of expression,” said the statement.

“This is contrary to the government’s duty to ensure that lawyers are able to perform their professional duties, which include scrutiny of courts, safely and without any threat, intimidation or harassment.

Amnesty International and Civicus call on the Fiji authorities to:

• Immediately drop contempt of court charges issued on 27 June 2022 against Richard Naidu;
• Refrain from prosecutions of lawyers, journalists and non-governmental organizations solely for the peaceful expression of opinions online or in any other medium;
• Publicly commit to upholding the right to freedom of expression, which includes the right to be critical, consistent with international human rights laws and standards and Fiji’s Constitution; and
• Invite the UN Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers to visit Fiji and fully co-operate with their visit.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Foreign investors could be sent to jail in Fiji for breaking a new investment law, says the prominent Suva law firm Munro Leys.

The company said the “vague and unsatisfactory” new Investment Act could create greater uncertainty for foreign investors.

In a legal alert to its clients, Munro Leys lawyers also said aspects of the new law could do “more harm than help” and “poor legal drafting leaves us more confused and slightly alarmed”.

It said serious investors relied on the laws of their target country to give them certainty and transparency.

“The Investment Act, unfortunately, does the opposite. In place of transparency, there is significant potential for confusion and frustration,” the legal firm said.

Munro Leys criticises some of the wording of the new law as “vague and almost impossible to legally pin down”.

“If we don’t know who a ‘foreign investor’ is and when they are investing, it is impossible to know which rules apply,” the legal alert said.

New regulations criticised
The firm’s alert also criticised new regulations which required foreign investors to bring into Fiji their total investment amount within three months of “incorporation” and said an investor could be prosecuted for failing to do so.

“The penalty for the offence, for an individual, is a fine not exceeding $10,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or both. Bodies corporate can be fined up to $50,000.

“To make matters worse, it’s not clear to whom this three-month rule applies. From a plain reading of the regulations, it applies only to those foreign investors investing in restrictive activities,” the legal advice said.

“However, the authorities appear to have expressed the view that it applies to all foreign investors.

“It is difficult to see the government prosecuting a foreign investor which does not bring in its money on time. But criminalising delay may create other issues for investors going to the legality of their investment and double down on the uncertainty that has already been created.”

Criticising Section 7 of the Act, Munro Leys said that an investor was required to send an investment proposal to the government for consent to invest in certain “critical sectors” but it was not clear what those sectors were.

“No one knows what the proposal should say, what criteria the minister will apply in his/her decision and how long the minister will take to approve it.

Other problems
“It seems that the government intends for regulations to be made to decide what sectors need ministerial approval. [But] with about a month to go before the new law comes into effect, there are no regulations.

“The problems are not confined to new investors.

“Existing investors, including those who complied with the old Foreign Investment Act, are not immune.

“They may now need to apply for permission to make new investments. Some companies who were not previous “foreign investors” may find they are now in that category (and vice versa).”

The Act will come into effect from August.

Questions sent to Attorney-General Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum, Fiji Commerce and Employers Federation (FCEF) and Fiji Chamber of Commerce and Industry remained unanswered.

Luke Nacei is a Fiji Times reporter. Republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

This week, on October 27 to 28 Julian Assange appeared before a United Kingdom court defending himself against an appeal that, if successful, would see him extradited to the United States of America to face a raft of indictments that ultimately could see him spend the rest of his life in prison.

The United States lawyers argued largely that human rights reasons that caused the United Kingdom courts to reject extradition to the US could be mitigated. That Julian Assange’s case could be heard in Australia and if found guilty serve out jail time in his home country rather than the United States.

Assange’s defence lawyer Edward Fitzgerald QC argued: “In short there is a large and cogent body of extraordinary and unprecedented evidence… that the CIA has declared Mr Assange as a ‘hostile’ ‘enemy’ of the USA, one which poses ‘very real threats to our country’, and seeks to ‘revenge’ him with significant harm.” The lawyers said the United States assurances were “meaningless”.

“It is perfectly reasonable to find it oppressive to extradite a mentally disordered person because his extradition is likely to result in his death.” Fitzgerald QC added that a court must have the power to “protect people from extradition to a foreign state where we have no control over what will be done to them”.

Lord Chief Justice Lord Burnett, sitting with Lord Justice Holroyde, said: “You’ve given us much to think about and we will take our time to make our decision.”

The judges then reserved their decision. It is expected Assange’s fate will be revealed within weeks.

In this SPECIAL REPORT, we examine why the United States wants this man. And we detail the space between whistleblowers, journalists and publishers who risk it all to help the world’s people to become more informed. Julian Assange finds himself crushed between these two counterbalances: the asserted right of powerful nations to operate in secret, and the right of the press to reveal what goes on in the public’s name.

Should Julian Assange be extradited from the UK to face indictments in the United States? Or should he be set free and offered a safe haven in a country such as Russia or even New Zealand?

It was always going to come down to this: Is Julian Assange captured by the assumptions people have of him, or a blurred line between a public’s right and a state’s wrong.

***

The United States effort to capture or kill Assange goes back to 2010. But his inclusion in what’s called the “Manhunt Timeline” soon lost its sting when, under United States of America’s President Barack Obama, it was believed if charges against Assange were brought before the US courts for his publishing activity, then he would be found not guilty due to the US’s First Amendment ‘freedom of the press’ constitutional protections.

But everything changed with a new president, and a massive leak to Wikileaks of CIA secret information on March 7 2017. 

That leak of what was called Vault 7 information “detailed hacking tools the US government employs to break into users’ computers, mobile phones and even smart TVs.” 

CBS News reported at the time: “The documents describe clandestine methods for bypassing or defeating encryption, antivirus tools and other protective security features intended to keep the private information of citizens and corporations safe from prying eyes.” (Ref. CBS News)

The Vault 7 leak (and earlier leaks going back to 2010) also revealed information that the US security apparatus argued compromised the safety of its personnel around the world. This aspect is vital to the United States Justice Department’s case against Julian Assange. 

Among a complex web of indictments and superseding indictments the US alleges Wikileaks and Assange conspired with whistleblowers (significant among them Chelsea Manning) in what it argues was a conspiracy against the United States’ interest. It also argues that Wikileaks and Julian Assange failed to satisfactorily redact leaked documents before dissemination or publication of the same – including details that put US personnel and agents at risk.

Prominent investigative journalist Nicky Hager had knowledge of Wikileaks’ processes, and, going back to 2010, spent time working with Wikileaks on redacting documents.

Hager testified at The Old Bailey in London in September 2020 before a hearing of the Assange case and according to The Australian said: “My main memory was people working hour after hour in total silence, very concentrated on their work and I was very impressed with efforts that they were taking (to redact names).” Hager added that he himself had redacted “a few hundred” Australian and New Zealand names.

On cross examination, The Australian reported: ‘Hager referred in his testimony to the global impact of the publication of the collateral murder video, which shows civilians being gunned down in Iraq from an Apache helicopter, which led to changes in US military policies. He claimed it had a “similar galvanising impact as the video of the death of George Floyd”.’ (Ref. The Australian)

But it was the Vault 7 leak that triggered the then Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) director Mike Pompeo to act. After that leak, Pompeo set out to destroy Wikileaks and its publisher Julian Assange.

POMPEO V ASSANGE

Mike Pompeo was appointed as CIA director in January 2017. The Vault 7 leak occurred on his watch. It was personal, and in April 2017 he defined Wikileaks as a ’non-state hostile intelligence service’.

That definition triggered a shift of approach. The United States’ intelligence apparatus and its Justice Department counterpart then re-asserted that Wikileaks and its publisher and editor in chief Julian Assange, were enemies of the United States.

Pompeo’s definition paved the way for a more targeted operation against Assange. But, for the time being, the United States’ public modus operandi was to ensure extradition proceedings, through numerous hearings and appeals, were dragged out while stacking an increasing number of complex indictments on the charge-sheet.

The definitions ensured the United Kingdom’s corrections system regarded Assange as a high risk and dangerous prisoner hostile to the UK’s special-relationship partner, the USA.

The tactic is well used by governments and states around the world. But in this case it appears beyond cold and calculated. As the United States applied a figurative legal-ligature around the neck of Julian Assange it knew his circumstances; that he was imprisoned, isolated, in solitary confinement, on a suicide watch, handled by prison guards under a repetitive high security risk protocol. It knew the psychological impact was compounding, causing legal observers, his lawyers, his supporters – even the judge overseeing the extradition proceedings – to fear that the wall before Assange of ongoing litigation, compounded with the potential for extradition and possible life imprisonment, would overwhelm him.

Let’s detail reality here. In real terms, being on suicide-watch as a high security risk prisoner, meant every time Assange left his cell for any reason (including when meeting his lawyers), on return he would be stripped, cavity searched (which includes being forced to squat while his rectum is digitally searched, and a mouth and throat search). This was a similar security search protocol that was used against Ahmed Zaoui while he was held at New Zealand’s Paremoremo maximum security prison. At that time Zaoui was regarded as a security risk to New Zealand. He was of course later found to be a man of peace and given his liberty. Sometimes things are not what they initially seem.

In the UK, for Assange the monotonous grind of total solitude and indignity ticked on. In the USA in March 2018, Mike Pompeo was set to be promoted. He received the then US President Donald Trump’s nomination to replace Rex Tillerson as US Secretary of State. The US Senate confirmed Pompeo’s nomination and he was sworn in on April 26, 2018.

Pompeo quickly became one of Trump’s most trusted and powerful Whitehouse insiders. As Secretary of State, Pompeo toured the globe’s foreign affairs circuit asserting the Trump Administration’s position on governments throughout the world. As such, Pompeo was regarded as one of the world’s most powerful men.

Looking back, Pompeo wasn’t the first high ranking US official to regard Assange as an enemy of the state. The Edward Snowden leaks of 2014 revealed that the US Government had in 2010 added Assange to its “Manhunting Timeline” – which is an annual list of individuals with a “capture or kill” designation.

This designation came during the early stages of the Obama Administration years. However, US investigations into Wikileaks then suggested Assange had not acted in a way that excluded him from being defined as a journalist and therefore it was likely Assange, if tried under United States law, would be provided protections under the US First Amendment (freedom of the press) constitutional clauses.

But when Pompeo advanced toward prominence, Obama was gone. And under Donald Trump, the United States appeared to ignore such constitutional rocks in the road. Trump had his own beef with the US’ fourth estate, and the conditions for respecting First Amendment privilege had deteriorated.

DID TRUMP STOP THE CIA KIDNAP OR KILL PLAN?

Perhaps we understand the Trump Administration’s mindset more now in the wake of the January 6, 2021 insurrection where supporters of Trump stormed the US House of Representatives seeking to overturn the election result and reinstate Trump as the president. Throughout much of that destructive day, Trump reportedly remained at the Whitehouse while the mob erected a gallows and sought out Vice President Mike Pence. The mob’s reason? Because Pence had begun the process of certifying electoral college writs, an essential step toward swearing in as President the newly elected Joe Biden.

It may reasonably be argued that Trump and some members of his Administration displayed a disregard for elements of the US Constitution. But, it must also be said, that Trump had at times displayed an empathy for Julian Assange’s situation.

This week The Hill reported on Trump’s view of Assange through an interview with the former president’s national security advisor, Keith Kellogg (who is also a retired US Army Lieutenant General.

Kellogg told The Hill: “He (Trump) looked at him (Assange) as someone who had been treated unfairly. And he kind of related him to himself… He said there’s an unfairness there and I want to address that.”

Kellogg added that Trump saw similarities between Assange and himself in that Trump would not back down in the face of media attacks: “I think he kind of saw that with Julian in the same way, like ‘ok, this guy’s not backing down’.” (Ref. The Hill.)

Kellogg’s account seems incongruous to what we now know. On September 26 2021, a Yahoo News media investigation delivered a bombshell. It revealed how the CIA had planned to kidnap or kill Assange.

But more on the detail of that below. First, let’s look at a confusing picture of how former President Trump’s words do not meet his Administration’s actions.

We know that ‘someone’ in the Trump Administration put a halt to the CIA’s kill or capture plan. We just do not know whether Trump commanded its cessation, or whether Pompeo or Trump’s attorney general/s operated outside the former president’s orbit. But we do know the US Justice Department pursued Assange through an intensifying relentless application of indictments of increasing severity and complexity. If it is an M.O. then its reasonable to suggest the legal wall of indictments and the CIA’s plan to kill or capture were potentially one of the same.

Which segues back to the details of the US case against Assange.

THE US JUSTICE DEPT V ASSANGE

In March 2019, the Washington Post reported that US Whistleblower Chelsea Manning had been subpoenaed to testify before a grand jury in the investigation of Julian Assange. The Post correctly suggested that the US Justice Department appeared interested in pursuing Wikileaks before a statute of limitations ran out.

Washington Post reported: “Steve Vladeck, a professor at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law, said the Justice Department likely indicted Assange last year to stay within the 10-year statute of limitations on unlawful possession or publication of national defense information, and is now working to add charges.” (Ref. Washington Post)

Then, On April 11 2019, after high-level bilateral meetings between the US and Ecuador, the Ecuadorian Government revoked Assange’s asylum. The UK’s Metropolitan Police were invited into Ecuador’s London embassy and Assange was arrested. 

Once Assange was in custody (pending the outcome of a court ruling of what eventually became a 50 week sentence for breaching bail) the United States made its move. On April 11, 2019 (the same day Ecuador evicted him) United States prosecutors unsealed an indictment against Assange referring back to information that Wikileaks had released in stages from February 18, 2010 onwards. (Ref. US Justice Department)

This video, known as the collateral murder video, was among the Wikileaks release. The video is of US military personnel killing what they initially thought were Iraqi insurgents. It also displays an apparent indifference by US personnel when, shortly after, it was revealed by ground troops that there were civilians killed including women and children (and also what were later found to be journalists). The leaked video exposed the United States to potential allegations of war crimes. The video, and the accompanying dossier of US classified documents, shocked the world and revealed what had been covered up by US secrecy. The information that was leaked by then US Military intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning, and published by Wikileaks and provided to a select group of the world’s most prominent media, was arguably a tipping point for public sentiment regarding the US invasion and occupation of Iraq. It was, in the <2010 decade, on par with revelations of abuses of detainees by US personnel at Abu Ghraib prison.

In a release to United States press, the Justice Department’s office of international affairs stated: “According to court documents unsealed today, the charge relates to Assange’s alleged role in one of the largest compromises of classified information in the history of the United States.”

It connected to how Wikileaks had acquired documents from US whistleblower Chelsea Manning. The leak contained 750,000 documents defined as ‘classified, or unclassified but sensitive’ military and diplomatic documents. The documents included video. The sum of the leaks detailed what were regarded generally as atrocities committed by American armed forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. The leaked material was also published by The New York Times, Der Spiegel and The Guardian. In May 2010, Manning was identified then charged with espionage and sentenced to 35 years in a US military prison. Later, in January 2017, just three days before leaving office, US President Barack Obama commuted Manning’s sentence.

On May 23, 2019, the US Justice Department issued a statement confirming Assange had been further charged in an 18-count superseding indictment that alleged violation of the Espionage Act of 1917. It specifically alleged (among other charges) that Assange conspired with Chelsea Manning in late 2009 and that: “… Assange and WikiLeaks actively solicited United States classified information, including by publishing a list of “Most Wanted Leaks” that sought, among other things, classified documents. Manning responded to Assange’s solicitations by using access granted to her as an intelligence analyst to search for United States classified documents, and provided to Assange and WikiLeaks databases containing approximately 90,000 Afghanistan war-related significant activity reports, 400,000 Iraq war-related significant activities reports, 800 Guantanamo Bay detainee assessment briefs, and 250,000 U.S. Department of State cables.” (ref. US Justice Department)

The superseding indictment added: “Many of these documents were classified at the Secret level.”

It’s also important to note, a superseding indictment, in this context carries heavy weight. It isn’t merely a charge lodged by an investigative wing of government, but issued by a US grand jury.

The May 2019 superseding indictments ignited a stern rebuttal from powerful media institutions.

The Washington Post and The New York Times, as well as press freedom organisations, criticised the government’s decision to charge Assange under the Espionage Act, characterising it as an attack on the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which guarantees freedom of the press. On 4 January 2021, District Judge Vanessa Baraitser ruled against the United States’ request to extradite him and stated that doing so would be “oppressive” given his mental health. On 6 January 2021, Assange was denied bail, pending an appeal by the United States. (Ref. Wikipedia.org)

In normal times an assault on the US First Amendment through a clever legal move would destroy a presidency. But these were not normal times.

Ultimately, the powerful US fourth estate fraternity failed to ward off the Trump Administration’s men. Trump himself was by this time already hurling attacks on the credibility and purpose of United States media. And, he tapped in to a constituency that distrusted what it heard from journalists.

Then on June 24, 2020, the US Justice Department delivered more charges against Assange, this time with an additional superseding indictment that included allegations he conspired with “Anonymous” affiliated hackers: “In 2010, Assange gained unauthorized access to a government computer system of a NATO country. In 2012, Assange communicated directly with a leader of the hacking group LulzSec (who by then was cooperating with the FBI), and provided a list of targets for LulzSec to hack.” (Ref. US Justice Department)

As the Trump presidency ran out of steam, and arguably created its own attacks on the United States national interest, Democratic Party candidate Joe Biden won the election and became the 46th President of the United States.

WHY ASSANGE WAS IMPRISONED IN THE UK

Julian Assange was tried before the United Kingdom courts and convicted for breaching the Bail Act. He was sentenced to 50 weeks in prison. He was expected to have been released after five to six months, but due to the United States extradition proceedings and appeal he was held indefinitely.

The initial bail conditions (of which Assange was found to have breached) were set resulting from an alleged sexual violence allegation made in Sweden in 2010. Assange had denied the allegations, and feared the case was designed to relocate him to Sweden and then onto the US via a legal extradition manoeuvre – hence why he sought asylum at the Ecuadorian embassy. Assange was never actually charged by Swedish authorities nor their UK counterparts, but rather the initial bail breach related to a move to extradite him to Sweden.

Also, as a side-note; in November 2019 Swedish prosecutors dropped their investigation into allegations of sexual violence crime. The BBC reported that Swedish authorities dropped the case as it had: “weakened considerably due to the long period of time that has elapsed since the events in question.” (Ref. BBC)

Meanwhile, Assange was imprisoned at London’s Belmarsh maximum-security prison where he was incarcerated indefinitely pending the outcome of US extradition proceedings.

There’s an irony that in January 2021, the week Assange was denied bail pending the outcome of the US-lodged appeal, back in the USA a mob loyal to Trump attempted a coup d’etat against the US constitution.

OUT WITH TRUMP IN WITH BIDEN + REVELATIONS OF THE CIA KILL OR CAPTURE PLAN

On January 20, 2021 Joe Biden was sworn in as president. Around the world a palpable mood of change was anticipated. It’s fair to say those involved or observing the Assange case were hopeful the United States under Joe Biden’s presidency would withdraw the initial charges and superseding indictments.

But, that was not to be.

Then on September 26 2021, a Yahoo News media investigation delivered a bombshell. It revealed how the CIA had planned to kidnap or kill Assange.

The investigation’s timeline revealed a plan was developed in 2017 during Pompeo’s tenure at the CIA and considered numerous scenarios where Assange could be liquidated while he resided at the Ecuadorian embassy. The investigation was backed by ‘more than 30 US official sources’. (Ref. Yahoo News)

The media investigation stated: “… the CIA was enraged by WikiLeaks’ publication in 2017 of thousands of documents detailing the agency’s hacking and covert surveillance techniques, known as the Vault 7 leak.” 

It added that Pompeo: “was determined to take revenge on Assange after the (Vault 7) leak.”

Apparently, the CIA believed Russian agents were planning to remove Assange from the Ecuadorian embassy and “smuggle” him to Russia: “Among the possible scenarios to prevent a getaway were engaging in a gun battle with Russian agents on the streets of London and ramming the car that Assange would be smuggled in.”

It appears a wise-head in the Trump Administration ordered a halt to the CIA plan due to legal concerns. Officials cited in the investigation suggested there were: “concerns that a kidnapping would derail US attempts to prosecute Assange.”

It would also be reasonable to suggest that a prosecution would be difficult should Assange be dead.

As the US extradition appeal loomed, Julian Assange’s US-based lawyer Barry Pollack reportedly said: “My hope and expectation is that the U.K. courts will consider this information (the CIA plot) and it will further bolster its decision not to extradite to the U.S..”

Assange’s partner Stella Morris, on the eve of the US’ extradition appeal proceedings also said reports of the CIA’s plan “was a game-changer” in his fight against extradition from Britain to the United States. (Ref. Reuters)

Greg Barnes, special council and Australian human rights lawyer and advocate spoke this week to a New Zealand panel (A4A via the internet): “Now we know that the CIA intended effectively to murder Assange. For an Australian citizen to be put in that position by Australia’s number one ally is intolerable. And I think in the minds of most Australians the view is that the Australian Government ought to intervene in this particular case and ensure the safety of one of its citizens.”

Barnes added that the Assange case is now a human rights case: “I can tell you that the rigours of the Anglo-American prison complex which we have here in Australia and in which Julian is facing at Belmarsh (prison in London) are such that very few people survive that system without having severe mental and physical pain and suffering for the rest of their lives.

“This should not be happening to an Australian citizen, whose only crime, and I put quotes around the word crime, has been to reveal the war crimes of the United States and its allies.” (Ref. A4A Youtube)

The respected journalist advocacy organisation, Reporters Without Borders (Reporters Sans Frontières or RSF), this week called for the US case against Assange to be closed and for Assange to be “immediately released”. (Ref. Reporters Without Borders)

RSF added: “During the two-day hearing, the US government will argue against the 4 January decision issued by District Judge Vanessa Baraitser, ruling against Assange’s extradition to the US on mental health grounds. The US will be permitted to argue on five specific grounds, following the High Court’s decision to widen the scope of the appeal during the 11 August preliminary hearing. An immediate decision is not expected at the conclusion of the 27-28 October hearing, but will likely follow in writing several weeks later.”

RSF concluded: “If Assange is extradited to the US, he could face up to 175 years in prison on the 18 counts outlined in the superseding indictment… (If convicted) Assange would be the first publisher pursued under the US Espionage Act, which lacks a public interest defence.”

RSF recently joined a coalition of 25 press freedom, civil liberties and international human rights organisations in calling again on the US Department of Justice to drop the charges against Assange.

BEYOND BELMARSH PRISON – HUMAN RIGHTS AND ASYLUM OPTIONS

There remains a logical and considered question as to what will become of Julian Assange should his legal team successfully defend moves of extradition to the United States.

Whistleblower Edward Snowden has found relative safety living inside the Russian Federation. But beyond Russia there are few safe-haven options available to Julian Assange.

This week a group called A4A (Aotearoa for Assange) coordinated an online panel of human rights advocates and whistleblowers to consider whether New Zealand should become involved.

It was a serious move. The panel included the United States’ highly respected Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg. (Ref. Pentagon Papers, Wikipedia)

Daniel Ellsberg told the panel: A trial under (the Espionage Act) cannot be a fair trial as there is “no appeal to motives, impact or purposes”.

“A trial under the Espionage Act could not permit that person to tell the jury why they did what they did,” Daniel Ellsberg said. “It is shameful that President Biden has gone in the footsteps of President Trump. It is shameful for President Biden to have continued that appeal.

“To allow this to go ahead is to put a target on the back of every journalist in the world who might consider doing real investigative journalism of what we call the National Defence or National Security…”

It’s a valid point for those that work within the sphere of fourth estate public interest journalism. While in New Zealand, there are rudimentary whistleblower protections, they fail to protect or ensure anonymity. For journalists, if a judge orders a journalist to reveal her or his source/s, then the journalist must consider breaching the code of ethics required from the profession, or acting in contempt of court. In the latter case, a judge can, in New Zealand, order the journalist be held in custody for contempt, and it should be pointed out there is no time limit of incarceration. Defamation law is equally as draconian. In New Zealand (unlike the United States) a journalist accused of defamation shoulders the burden of proof – to prove a defamation was not committed. 

The chill factor (a reference to pressures that cause journalists to abandon deep and meaningful reportage) is real. 

Daniel Ellsberg knows what this means. And he fears, that if the US wins its appeal against Assange, it will erode the fourth estate from reporting on what goes on behind the scenes with governments: “… there will be more Vietnams, more Iraqs, more acts of aggression… A great deal rides (on this case) on the possibility of freedom.”

His comments connect remarkably with those of former New Zealand prime minister, and former administrator of the United Nations Development Program, Helen Clark.

In a previous online discussion, Helen Clark was asked what she thought of Julian Assange’s case. In a considered reply she said: “You do wonder when the hatchet can be buried with Assange, and not buried in his head by the way.

“I do think that information that’s been disclosed by whistleblowers down the ages has been very important in broader publics getting to know what is really going on behind the scenes.

“And, should people pay this kind of price for that? I don’t think so. I felt that Chelsea Manning for example was really unduly repressed.

“The real issue is; the activities they were exposing and not the actions of their exposure,” Helen Clark said.

The US appeals case this week is not litigating the merits of its indictments. But rather it has attempted to mitigate the reasons Judge Vanessa Baraitser denied extradition in January 2021. The US legal team has suggested to the UK court that Assange’s human rights issues could be minimised should he face trial in his native Australia, that if found guilty that he could serve out his sentence there. It gave however no assurances that this would occur.

On the eve of the appeal, and appearing before the A4A online panel was Dr Deepa Govindarajan Driver. 

Dr Driver is an academic with the University of Reading (UK) and a legal observer very familiar with the Assange case. The degree of human rights abuses against Assange disturb her.

Dr Driver detailed what she had observed: “Julian Assange was served the second superseding indictment on the first day of trial. When he took his papers with him, back to the prison, his privileged papers were taken from him. He was handcuffed, cavity searched, stripped naked on a daily basis. (This is) a highly intelligent human being who we already know is on the Autism Spectrum. To be put through the indignities and arbitrariness of the process which is consistently working in a way that doesn’t stand with normal process… For somebody who has gone through all of this for a number of years, it has its psychological impact. But it is not just psychological, the physical effects of torture are pretty severe including the internal damage that he has.”

She added: “We expect the high court will recognise the kind of serious gross breaches of Julian’s basic rights and the inability for him to have a fair trial in the UK or in the US and that this case will be dismissed immediately.”

On the merits of whistleblowers, Dr Driver said: “You can see through the Vault 7 leaks how much the State knows about what is going on in your daily lives… As an observer in court I see how he (Julian Assange) is being tortured on a day to day basis. His privileged conversations with his lawyers were spied on.”

Dr Driver said the Swedish allegations were never backed up with charges. In fact the allegations were dropped due to time and insufficient evidence.

The UN special rapporteur on torture, Nils Melzer, concluded after his investigation of the Swedish allegations that Assange was never given the opportunity to put his side of the case.

Dr Driver said: “In any situation where there is violence against women, and I say this as a survivor myself, people are meant to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. And, this new trend which is accusation-equal-to-guilt is a bad trend because it undermines the cause of women, and it prevents women from getting justice – just as it happened in Sweden because indeed nobody will ever know what happened between Julian and those women other than the two parties there.”

A CRIME LEFT UNDEFENDED OR A CASE OF WEAPONISING VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN?

Dr Deepa Driver said: “If cases like this are not brought to court, then neither the women nor those accused like Julian get justice. And it is Lisa Longstaff at Women Against Rape who has said time and again; ‘this is the state weaponising women in order to achieve its own ends and hide its own warcrimes’. And this is what Britain and America have done in weaponising the case in Sweden, because Sweden was always about extraditing Julian (Assange) to America.”

She suggested Assange’s situation is a human rights case where he is the victim. The view has validity. 

The United Nations’ special rapporteur Nils Melzer issued a statement on January 5 2021 welcoming the UK judge’s ruling that blocked his extradition to the United States (a ruling that this week was under appeal).

Melzer went on: “This ruling confirms my own assessment that, in the United States, Mr. Assange would be exposed to conditions of detention, which are widely recognized to amount to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”

Melzer said the judgement set an “alarming precedent effectively denying investigative journalists the protection of press freedom and paving the way for their prosecution under charges of espionage”.

“I am gravely concerned that the judgement confirms the entire, very dangerous rationale underlying the US indictment, which effectively amounts to criminalizing national security journalism,” Melzer said.

In summary Melzer said: “The judgement fails to recognize that Mr. Assange’s deplorable state of health is the direct consequence of a decade of deliberate and systematic violation of his most fundamental human rights by the Governments of the United States, the United Kingdom, Sweden and Ecuador.”

He added: “The failure of the judgment to denounce and redress the persecution and torture of Mr. Assange, leaves fully intact the intended intimidating effect on journalists and whistleblowers worldwide who may be tempted to publish secret evidence for war crimes, corruption and other government misconduct”. (Ref. UNCHR)

A CALL FOR NEW ZEALAND TO PROVIDE ASYLUM

This week, US whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg applauded New Zealand’s independent global identity. And, he called for New Zealand’s Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern to provide an asylum solution should Julian Assange be released.

Dr Ellsberg’s call was supported by Matt Robson, a former cabinet minister in Helen Clark’s Labour-Alliance Government and whom currently practices immigration law in Auckland.

Matt Robson said: “We can support this brave publisher and journalist who has committed the same crime, in inverted commas, as Daniel Ellsberg – to tell the truth as a good honest journalist should do. Our letter to our (New Zealand) Government is a plea to do the right thing. To say directly on the line that is available, to (US) President Biden, to free Julian Assange.”

Australian-based lawyer Greg Barnes said: “New Zealand plays a prominent and important role in the Asia-Pacific region and it is not beyond the realms of possibility that the New Zealand Government could offer Julian Assange what Australia appears incapable of doing, and that is safety for himself and his family.”

So why New Zealand?

Daniel Ellsberg said: “There are many countries that would have been supportive of Assange, none of whom wanted to get into trouble with the United States of America. Of all the countries in the world I think you can pick out New Zealand that has dared to do that in the past. I remember the issue over whether they would allow American warships into New Zealand harbours.

“Julian Assange should not be on trial,” Daniel Ellsberg said. “And given he is indicted, he should not be extradited. It is extremely important, especially to journalists.

“To allow this to go ahead is to put a target, a bull’s eye, on the back of every journalist in the world who might consider doing real investigative journalism of what we call national security. It’s to assure every journalist that he or she as well as your sources can be put in prison, kidnapped if necessary to the US. That is going to chill (journalists) to a degree that there will be more Vietnams, more Iraqs, more acts of aggression such as we have just seen. The world cannot afford that. A great deal rides on the policy matters on the possibility of freedom,” so said Daniel Ellsberg – the US whistleblower who blew the lid off atrocities that were committed in Vietnam.

CONCLUSION:

Of course there are always complications, such as executive government leaders involving themselves in judicial matters. But sometimes a leader does the right thing, simply because it is the right thing to do – as Helen Clark did early on in her prime ministership when she extended an olive branch to people fleeing tyranny onboard a ship called the Tampa, which was under-threat of sinking off the coast of Australia. Helen Clark brought the Tampa refugees home to a new place called Aotearoa New Zealand, and we have been better off as a nation because of it.

Fiji Attorney-General Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum’s “petulance” has become tiresome and unnecessary, says prominent lawyer and advocate Graham Leung.

He made the statement in response to Sayed-Khaiyum’s criticism of lawyers in the Court of Disputed Returns case restoring Opposition MP Niko Nawaikula to the electoral roll last week.

Sayed-Khaiyum claimed that the lawyers in the case “did not do a good job” arguing the case, after the court ruled that the Supervisor of Elections had “acted wrongfully and unlawfully” in removing Nawaikula from the National Register of Voters (NRV).

Leung said the Attorney-General’s comments were unprofessional.

“As leader of the bar, to be publicly criticising lawyers that are party to litigation where he is a defendant, frankly, his petulance has become tiresome and is unnecessary,” he said.

“If the Attorney-General wishes to be respected in the legal profession and beyond, he should start showing respect. Throwing a tantrum when you lose a case is not what we expect from the Leader of the Bar.”

Leung said Sayed-Khaiyum appeared to be criticising the lawyers in his own department.

Support for MP’s case
Leung, who represented Nawaikula in the case alongside Jon Apted and Simione Valenitabua, said they represented their client to the best of their abilities.

“We did what we were asked to do, which was to support his case for reinstatement to Parliament.

“As far as we are concerned, the Solicitor-General and his legal team conducted themselves admirably.

“This is the same team that the Attorney-General relies on to do the ‘heavy lifting’ in his chambers and we can only empathise with them that they appear to have been used as a scapegoat for how the case turned out.”

In a press conference in Suva last week, Sayed-Khaiyum said counsel for the Supervisor of Elections and Nawaikula did not do a good job.

“None of the counsels actually listened to the proceedings with the submissions that were made, none of them talked specifically about the implications of not having the correct name registered and one name registered,” he said.

“The implications of any constitutional breaches, nobody talked about that. The Constitution says, specifically under Section 52, that there should be free and fair elections.

“So how can one have free and fair elections if you have the ability to register your name more than once?”

Jale Daucakacaka is a Fiji Times reporter. Republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

An International Criminal Court official in the Pacific is calling on all parties in the Afghanistan conflict to respect humanitarian law.

Thousands of foreign nationals, including Afghanis who worked for international agencies, are fleeing the conflict as Taliban forces seized control of the country.

Suicide bombers struck the crowded gates of Kabul airport with at least two explosions on Thursday, causing a bloodbath among civilians, shutting down the Western airlift of Afghans desperate to flee the Taliban regime.

The death toll from the attack is at least 175, including 13 US soldiers, according to media reports.

The attacks came amid ongoing chaos around the airport amid the American withdrawal after 20 years in the region.

Fijian lawyer Ana Tuiketei-Bolabiu has reiterated the Hague Court’s call for all parties to the hostilities to fully respect their obligations under international humanitarian law, including by ensuring the protection of civilians.

She said the ICC may exercise jurisdiction over any genocide, crime against humanity or war crime committed in Afghanistan since the country joined the court in 2003.

First woman counsel
Tuiketei-Bolabiu became the first woman counsel appointed to the Hague Court in April last year. In September, she was elected to the Defence and Membership Committee of the ICC’s Bar Association.

She told RNZ Pacific she is concerned about reports of revenge killings and persecution of women and girls in Afghanistan.

“It’s just an evolving and deteriorating situation in Afghanistan,” she said.

“The UN Security met in New York to discuss the situation in Afghanistan and what was interesting to hear from the Afghani UN ambassador Ghulam Isaczai confirming his concerns on human rights violations for girls, women and human rights defenders, and journalists, including the internally displaced people.

“He also elaborated on the fear of the Kabul residents from the house-to-house search carried out by the Taliban, registering of names and the hunt for people.

“The UN meeting also discussed safety, security, dignity and peace but also trying to protect the lives and the movement of women and children, the international community, displaced people and even the food and all the other humanitarian care that is supposed to be given to the people there.

“We’re hoping that the international human rights laws will actually be observed.”

UN chief Antonio Guterres has also called for an end to the fighting in Afghanistan.

Challenges for prosecutor
Tuiketei-Bolabiu said challenges lay ahead for the Hague Court’s new prosecutor, Karim Khan, who replaced Fatou Bensouda in June this year.

Khan inherits the long-running investigation by his predecessor into possible crimes committed in Afghanistan since 2003.

Those included alleged killings of civilians by the Taliban, as well as the alleged torture of prisoners by Afghan authorities, and by American forces and the CIA in 2003-2004.

Tuiketei-Bolabiu said the ICC only approved a formal investigation in March 2020, which prompted then US President Donald Trump to impose sanctions on Bensouda.

“In May, Afghanistan pleaded with Bensouda for a deferral of the ICC prosecution investigation, arguing that the government was already conducting its own inquiries, mostly focusing on alleged Taliban crimes,” she said.

“Under ICC rules, the court only has power to prosecute crimes committed on the territory of member states when they are unwilling or unable to do so themselves.”

It is not yet clear how the ICC will proceed with the current investigation.

Interests of justice
But Tuiketei-Bolabiu is adamant justice will prevail.

“In March last year, the ICC appeals chamber judges found that in the interest of justice investigations should proceed by the prosecution on war crimes since 2003 including armed conflicts and other serious crimes that fall within the jurisdiction of the courts and that includes the Taliban, Afghan national police, other security forces and the CIA,” she said.

“What’s interesting now is the ICC does not have a police force so it solely relies on member states for arrests and investigations. Now the political landscape in Afghanistan has extremely changed.

“The cooperation with the ICC prosecutions office to support the court’s independence will become a bigger challenge in the future.”

UN Human Rights Council meets
The UN Human Rights Council held a special session this week to address the serious human rights concerns and the situatiation in Afghanistan.

The meeting was called by the council’s Afghanistan and Pakistan members.

Discussions were centred on the appointment of a committee to investigate crimes against humanity.

Tuiketei-Bolabiu said any evidence from the human rights council would help the court’s investigations.

But Amnesty International said the UN council has failed the people of Afghanistan.

In a statement, Amnesty said the meeting neglected to establish an independent mechanism to monitor ongoing crimes under international law and human rights violations and abuses in Afghanistan.

“Such a mechanism would allow for monitoring and reporting on human rights violations and abuses, including grave crimes under international law, and to assist in holding those suspected of criminal responsibility to justice in fair trials.”

However, the calls were ignored by UNHRC member states, who adopted by consensus a weak resolution which merely requests further reports and an update by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights in March 2022, which adds little to the oversight process already in place.

“The UN Human Rights Council special session has failed to deliver a credible response to the escalating human rights crisis in Afghanistan. Member states have ignored clear and consistent calls by civil society and UN actors for a robust monitoring mechanism,” said Agnès Callamard, Amnesty International’s secretary-general.

“Many people in Afghanistan are already at grave risk of reprisal attacks. The international community must not betray them, and must urgently increase efforts to ensure the safe evacuation of those wishing to leave,” she said.

Amnesty International said member states must now move beyond handwringing, and take meaningful action to protect those feeling the conflict in Afghanistan.

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

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz