With all the setbacks of recent years, Vanuatu’s citizenship sale schemes should be dead in the water — instead they are thriving, and geopolitical chaos is playing a part.

The citizenship-by-investment sector is the biggest single revenue earner for Vanuatu’s government, but lingering issues of integrity cast a shadow over it.

In 2024, when Vanuatu became the first country to lose its European Union visa-free access over concerns about its golden passport scheme, there were fears it would be a huge blow to the sector.

But designated agents for Vanuatu’s citizenship programmes have told RNZ Pacific this has not necessarily hurt them much, as their product has other benefits and passport holders can still apply to access Europe.

However, Vanuatu’s continued inclusion on an EU anti-money laundering blacklist hurts more, Francesca Grillon of approved agent Yawha & Associates said.

Currency hassles
Grillon said the decision to stop visa-free entry was not a major downfall for the citizenship programme.

“I think the main issue we are having is the blacklisting from Europe, because that that is an obstacle for receiving funds in foreign currency,” she said.

This issue came to a head last September when the Commonwealth Bank of Australia — which served as the correspondent bank for the National Bank of Vanuatu — advised it would no longer facilitate transfers for certified agents in the citizenship programmes

Melten Menauke of Smart Citizenship Vanuatu explained that this left the government in a bind over how it collects the donations and fees that foreign applicants pay.

“The National Bank is still looking for a correspondent bank to accept US dollars. I don’t know what is happening with the Commonwealth Bank of Australia.

“US currency was the first one they blocked, and now they are no longer accepting [Australian dollars]. They’re only accepting Japanese yen,” he said, adding that this created costly hurdles for agents and applicants alike.

But integrity issues are not just creating pressure on Vanuatu’s citizenship sector internationally.

‘Nobody trusts anyone’
A Commission of Inquiry into the citizenship programmes was initiated by Vanuatu’s government in 2024 following concerns about corrupt practices involving the sale of citizenship and misuse of the programmes for personal and political gain.

But the inquiry report has still not been made public, eight months after it was officially handed to the government. As calls for its release continue, Jenny Ligo, the chairperson of Women Against Crime and Corruption in Vanuatu, said citizenship schemes had been misled by political interests.

“That programme needs to be taken out totally. Because most of the projects under programmes in Vanuatu, it always ties in with pollitics and politicians,” Ligo said.

“This is all wrong. We need neutral people to run these programmes. But at the moment nobody trusts anyone.”

Vanuatu’s government has had a lot to contend with in the last few years, including responding to major disasters — earthquakes and cyclones — and the challenge of creating much-needed political reform. However, addressing the integrity problems of the citizenship-by-investment schemes is high on its priotiy list

Grillon said the government had been taking the right steps to improve compliance with regulations and rules, including strengthening the Financial Intelligence Unit which screens applicants.

“There’s a lot of effort, both from the high level government and directorship and public servants, in trying to really follow the international advice, and the newly introduced laws and doing everything properly.”

In demand
Overall, the sector is doing well. According to the Vanuatu Daily Post, citizenship sale receipts made up the bulk of the US$31 million in revenue in the past year — 24.3 percent more than what was forecast, with around 2000 foreigners granted citizenship last year.

Interest remains strong in several foreign markets, Norman Joseph of JG Marketing, Consulting and Recruitment Agency said.

“We have Chinese, we have Indonesians, we have Russians. Most of them are from different countries but they also have passports from different countries,” Joseph said.

“So they come in, for example, some might be Chinese but they also have a Mexican passport, so they apply from a Mexican passport.”

Ros Stanford of designated agent Stanford Knight said the Vanuatu passport was attractive for a variety of reasons.

“So, either for visa free travel — so global mobility is one option; for those that actually physically want to reside for tax benefits; and then we have a lot of clients currently who just want a safe like a Plan B, a safe alternative residence, in case things turn to custard globally.”

On the latter reason, Stanford said they had seen an uptick in the last couple of years, a reflection of ongoing ruptures in the global geopolitical order.

Even without visa-free access to Europe, and despite the concerns of ni-Vanuatu about its commodification, Vanuatu Citizenship is in demand — and agents tout it as one of the fastest citizenships to get any where in the world.

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

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Fiji Deputy Prime Minister Manoa Kamikamica has stepped down from his position on the eve of his court appearance for corruption-related charges.

Kamikamica has been charged by the country’s anti-corruption office with perjury and providing false information in his capacity as a public servant.

Kamikamica, who also serves as the Minister for Trade and Communications, informed Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka yesterday that he would focus on clearing his name in relation to the charges laid against him by the Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption (FICAC).

He is one of three deputy prime ministers in Rabuka’s coalition government.

“I have accepted his decision to step down, and he has assured me of his unwavering commitment to the government and the people of Fiji,” Rabuka said in a statement.

“I will be overseeing his portfolio responsibilities for the foreseeable future.”

The deputy prime minister was overseas on official duties and was returning to the country.

His case is scheduled to appear at the Suva Magistrates Court today.

FICAC has not publicly commented on the specifics of the case.

The charges were filed following investigations related to the Commission of Inquiry report into the appointment of Barbara Malimali as FICAC chief, according to the state broadcaster FBC.

FBC reported that FICAC officers had seized Kamikamica’s mobile phone in July during the execution of a search warrant.

Kamikamica is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

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

FBC reports that Kamikamica’s legal representative, Wylie Clarke, appeared before the court today and raised serious concerns about the validity of the charges.

Clarke told the court that the case was fundamentally flawed, both in its legal foundation and in the evidence supporting it.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

The Fiji government looks set to pay around NZ$1.5 million in damages to the disgraced former head of the country’s anti-corruption agency FICAC.

The state is offering Barbara Malimali an out-of-court settlement after her lawyer lodged a judicial review of her sacking in the High Court in Suva.

Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka suspended Malimali from her role on May 29, following a damning Commission of Inquiry into her appointment.

Malimali was described as “universally corrupt” by Justice David Ashton-Lewis, the commissioner of the nine-week investigation, which involved 35 witnesses.

“She was a pawn in the hands of devious members of government, who wanted any allegations against them or other government members thrown out,” Ashton-Lewis told RNZ Pacific Waves earlier this month.

Tanya Waqanika, who acts for Malimali, told RNZ Pacific that her client was seeking a “substantial” payout for damages and unpaid dues.

Waqanika met lawyers from the Attorney-General’s Office in the capital, Suva, on Tuesday after earlier negotiations failed.

Expected to hear in writing
She declined to say exactly what was discussed, but said she expected to hear back in writing from the other party the same day.

A High Court judge has given the government until 3pm on Friday to reach a settlement, otherwise he will rule on the application on Monday.

“We’ll see what they come up with, that’s the beauty of negotiations, but NZ$1.5 million would be a good amount to play with after your career has been ruined,” Waqanika said.

“[Malimali’s] career spans over 27 years, but it is now down the drain thanks to Ashton-Lewis and the damage the inquiry report has done.”

She said Malimali also wanted a public apology, as she was being defamed every day in social media.

“I don’t expect we’ll get one out of Ashton-Lewis,” she said.

Adjournment sought
During a hearing in the High Court on Monday, lawyers for the state sought an adjournment to discuss a settlement with Waqanika.

However, she opposed this, saying that the government’s legal team had vast resources and they should have been prepared for the hearing.

Malimali filed a case against President Naiqama Lalabalavu, Rabuka and the Attorney-General on June 13 on the grounds that her suspension was unconstitutional.

Waqanika said the President suspended her on the advice of the Prime Minister instead of consulting the Judicial Services Commission.

Government lawyers approached Waqanika offering a compensation deal the same day she lodged a judicial review in the High Court.

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

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Papua New Guinea’s Police Commissioner David Manning has been reinstated after being stood down following riots and looting on January 10.

That rioting — branded as Black Wednesday — was sparked by a police protest after unannounced deductions from their wages, which the government blamed on a glitch.

The protest led to a riot causing the deaths of more than 20 people, widespread looting and hundreds of millions of dollars of damage to businesses.

Amnesty International called on authorities to protect human rights in response to the riots.

The 14-day state of emergency following the violence has now ended.

The National newspaper reported Prime Minister James Marape announced Manning’s reinstatement, and that of Taies Sansan as the Department of Personnel Management Secretary, after administrative preliminary investigations concluded.

However, Treasury Secretary Andrew Oake and Finance Secretary Samuel Penias remained suspended “due to their failure to update the salary system, which led to the events of Jan 10”, Marape said.

Marape also said Deputy Police Commissioner Dr Philip Mina was being suspended.

A commission of inquiry will be appointed to look into the police force.

“The commission of inquiry will be headed by a judge from the Supreme Court and National Court, and will be concluded as soon as possible, to look into the structure, the operation, and their ethics of conduct,” Marape said.

“The country deserves to have a police force that is effective and efficient. We will leave no stone unturned as we recover, reboot and restore.”

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Australian Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price’s recent claim that New Zealand’s Waitangi Tribunal has veto powers over Parliament was met with surprise in New Zealand, especially by the members of the tribunal itself.

That’s because it is just plain wrong.

As the debate around the Voice to Parliament ramps up, we can probably expect similar claims to be made ahead of this year’s referendum. But the issue is so important to Australia’s future that such misinformation should not go unchallenged.

From an Australian perspective, New Zealand may appear ahead of the game in recognising Indigenous voices constitutionally. But that has certainly not extended to granting a parliamentary power of veto to Māori.

The Waitangi Tribunal was originally established as a commission of inquiry in 1975, given the power only to make recommendations to government. And so it remains. The Crown alone appoints tribunal members and many are non-Māori.

As with all commissions of inquiry, it’s up to the government of the day to make a political decision about whether or not to implement those recommendations.

Deceptive and wrong
Price’s claim echoed a February article and paper published by the Institute of Public Affairs, aimed at influencing the Voice referendum. Titled “The New Zealand Māori voice to Parliament and what we can expect from Australia”, it was written by the director of the institute’s legal rights program, John Storey.

The paper makes a number of assertions: the Waitangi Tribunal has a veto over the New Zealand parliament’s power to pass certain legislation; the Waitangi Tribunal was established to hear land claims but its brief has expanded to include all aspects of public policy; and the Waitangi Tribunal “shows the Voice will create new Indigenous rights”.

The last of the statements is deceptive and the others are completely wrong. The Waitangi Tribunal’s jurisdiction was largely set in stone by the New Zealand parliament in 1975 when it was established.

Far from investigating land claims, it initially wasn’t able to examine any claims dating from before 1975. Parliament changed the tribunal’s jurisdiction in 1985, giving it retrospective powers back to 1840 (when the Treaty of Waitangi/te Tiriti o Waitangi was signed).

The tribunal then started hearing land claims. But in its first decade, it focused on fisheries, planning issues, the loss of Māori language, government decisions being made at the time and general issues of public policy.

Historic grievances
Over the past 38 years, the tribunal has focused on what are called “historical Treaty claims”, covering the period 1840 to 1992. In 1992 a major settlement of fishing claims began an era of negotiation and settlement of these claims, quite separate from the tribunal itself.

With the majority of significant historic claims now settled or in negotiation, that aspect of the tribunal’s work is coming to an end. It has returned to hearing claims about social issues and other more contemporary issues.

Far from expanding its jurisdiction, the tribunal’s powers have been steadily reduced in recent decades. In 1993, it lost the power to make recommendations involving private land — that is, land not owned by the Crown.

In 2008, it lost the power to investigate new historical claims, as the government looked to close off new claims that could undermine current settlements.

There is one area where the tribunal was given the power to force the Crown to return land. The 1984-1990 Labour government set a policy to rid itself of what were seen as surplus Crown assets.

A deal was struck between Māori claimants and the Crown to allow the tribunal to make binding recommendations to return land in very special cases.

This compromise was not created by the tribunal but through ambiguity in legislation, which was resolved in favour of Māori claimants in the Court of Appeal. The ability to return land has almost never been used and is being progressively repealed across the country as Treaty settlements are implemented in legislation.

Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price made the erroneous comments while appearing at a debate on the Voice to Parliament referendum in Australia. https://t.co/XGBfteJDaM

— Stuff (@NZStuff) April 27, 2023

Wide political support
Storey quotes a number of tribunal reports, which make findings about the Crown’s responsibilities, as if these findings are binding on the Crown or even on Parliament. This is not the case. The Waitangi Tribunal investigates claims that the Crown has acted contrary to the “principles of the Treaty”.

The Waitangi Tribunal establishes what those principles are, but they are binding on neither the courts nor Parliament. Having made findings, the tribunal makes recommendations — not to Parliament, as Storey suggests, but to ministers of the Crown.

Some recommendations are implemented, others are not.

Where there is a dispute between the Crown and Māori, the tribunal has often recommended negotiation rather than make specific recommendations for redress.

Storey has elsewhere referred to the tribunal as a “so-called advisory, now binding, Māori Voice to Parliament” that has “decreed” certain things. In the longer paper he does admit the “tribunal cannot dictate the exact form any redress offered by government must take”.

But he then falls back on the notion of a “moral veto” — that its status is so elevated that parliament is forced, however reluctantly, to do its bidding.

Yet not only does the Crown ignore tribunal recommendations as it chooses, it refuses even to be bound by the tribunal’s expert findings on history in negotiating settlements.

The Waitangi Tribunal will remain a permanent commission of inquiry because there is wide political support for its work. Nor can be it held solely responsible for increasing Māori assertiveness or political engagement with government, even if this was in any way a bad thing.

A larger social shift has taken place in Aotearoa New Zealand over the past few decades. No fiat from the Waitangi Tribunal has eliminated the cultural misappropriation of Māori faces and imagery — something Storey warns could mean “tea towels with a depiction of Uluru/Ayers Rock, or boomerang fridge magnets, would become problematic”.

The Waitangi Tribunal has often done no more than make Māori histories, Māori perspectives and Māori values accessible to a non-Māori majority. It has certainly had no power to control where debates on Indigenous issues fall.

Dr Michael Belgrave is professor of history, Massey University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

National Federation Party leader Professor Biman Prasad has asked if the Fiji government inquiry into the Office of the Auditor-General will be held in public.

Professor Prasad was responding to the announcement this week of a Commission of Inquiry into the OAG “to inquire into and report on: the conduct, operations and performance of the Office of the Auditor-General” and other issues concerning the office.

Prasad, an economist before his political career, said commissions of inquiry were usually held in public.

“So we ask the government if this will be a public inquiry?” he said.

“Will the public hear the allegations against the Auditor-General’s office? Will the Auditor-General be allowed to respond in public to the Government’s complaints?”

Professor Prasad claimed the commission of inquiry was being formed “to deflect questions about the tens of millions of dollars [the government] has spent on Walesi [Fiji’s controversial free new digital television platform]”.

“The government refuses to talk about Walesi’s accounts. Even though Walesi’s accounts up to 2017 are ready, the government refuses to release them.”

Petty argument while people in poverty
The NFP leader said the government would end 2021 as a “laughing stock”.

He said government “only cares about winning a petty argument even when tens of thousands of people are still living in poverty and despair because of the pandemic”.

“We are once again threatened by the omicron variant,” he said.

“Many families are in isolation because they have tested positive in homes, in villages and settlements on Vanua Levu, are struggling and are in need of help.

“What is the government doing to help? We should be preparing for the cyclone season and ensuring our people are safe.”

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

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz