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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Te suggested De Lima’s team should.

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

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

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

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

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

Lian Buan is a Rappler reporter. Republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

A group of citizens in New Caledonia has asked France’s highest administrative court to postpone next Sunday’s third and final independence referendum.

In an urgent submission, 146 voters and three organisations said that given the impact of the covid-19 pandemic, it was “unthinkable” to proceed with such an important plebiscite.

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

For weeks pro-independence parties have unsuccessfully lobbied Paris to delay the vote and they now say they will neither take part in the vote nor recognise its result.

They also say they will challenge the process at the United Nations.

France, which deems the pandemic to be mastered, last week flew in almost 250 magistrates and judicial officials to oversee Sunday’s vote.

It also flew in about 2000 extra police, including riot squads, to provide security for the referendum.

Wallisian party opposes ‘political nonsense’
New Caledonia’s Pacific Awakening Party also says next Sunday’s referendum is a “political nonsense”.

The party’s leader, Milakulo Tukumuli, said the vote should not go ahead as planned because the pandemic has made campaigning impossible and pro-independence Kanaks said they would not take part in the process.

The party, which represents Wallisian and Futunians and holds the balance of power in New Caledonia’s Congress, said all the same, the plebiscite on December 12 could not be legally challenged.

Tukumuli also said his party was against independence now because there was not the capacity to assume full sovereignty.

The December 12 vote will be the third and final independence referendum under the terms of the 1998 Noumea Accord.

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

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Sometime this week Newsroom co-editor Mark Jennings is due to be interviewed under caution by the New Zealand police because he kicked the hornet’s nest.

The particular hornet’s nest he disturbed was Oranga Tamariki, a state agency, and the reason it was given a boot was a now-discredited policy called reverse uplifts.

Jennings took editorial responsibility for a series of ground-breaking investigations led by Melanie Reid that including a video documentary containing shocking images of the “uplifting” of a child.

In a story on the Newsroom website last week, co-editor Tim Murphy revealed the police investigation that named Jennings and the demand that he attend the under-caution interview. “Under caution” means that anything he says could be used in a criminal prosecution against him.

The story noted that the case highlighted in the video led directly to Children’s Minister Kelvin Davis seeking a “please explain” from the agency and then directing Oranga Tamariki to stop the new policy of “reverse uplifts’” under which Māori children around the country who had been put in permanent care were being summarily removed and taken, in the case investigated, to unknown and distant whānau.

A Māori advisory panel was appointed from outside the ministry and the chief executive of Oranga Tamariki (OT), Grainne Moss, later resigned.

However, OT did not take the Newsroom investigation on the chin. In fact, it came out fighting and enlisted Crown Law. That intervention led to a High Court order to remove a video from the Newsroom website and the media organisation being hit with a $13,000 costs order it can ill-afford.

Finding may be challenged
The judge in the case did not accept that the matter was of such public interest that it over-rode the (strongly contested) matter of potential identification. While I accept that the identity of vulnerable persons must be protected under both the Family Court Act and the Oranga Tamariki Act, it remains to be seen whether that finding against Newsroom will be challenged. My own – strictly layman’s – view is that it could be.

Now one of Newsroom’s most senior executives is being threatened with criminal prosecution under the Family Court Act. Jennings could face up to three months in prison or a maximum fine of $2000 under that legislation. Arguably, he might even face a charge of contempt of court which can carry up to six months imprisonment or a $25,000 fine.

My question is a simple one: Why?

Why was Crown Law asked to intercede on Oranga Tamariki’s behalf? Why was an injunction sought in spite of Newsroom’s willingness to take steps to avoid identification of children? Why, after the initial aim of removing the video had succeeded, was an order for costs pursued against a fledgling news organisation struggling to maintain financial viability? Why have the police now been involved to pursue a criminal investigation against one of its co-founders? And why has this whole matter been pursued with such vigour?

My own view is that Newsroom’s investigation was very much in the public interest and that the video was a critical element in bringing about a policy change. I thought the possibility of identifying the children was remote.

Collectively, my questions have a simple answer: To send a message that, if you kick a state agency’s hornet’s nest, expect to get stung.

In legal and media circles it has a name: The Chilling Effect. It’s a concept that has been around for a long time.

Sedition laws as punishment
One of America’s founding fathers, James Madison, had real concern during the framing of the Constitution of the United States over the use of sedition laws to punish those who criticised government. Madison rightly concluded that it would lead to an author thinking twice before publishing and create a form of self-censorship.

And so it does.

In 2015 I swore an affidavit in support of Nicky Hager’s action against the Police when they executed a search warrant on his home following publication of Dirty Politics. It was one of three affidavits on the nature of the chilling effect that searches for the identity of confidential sources would have on investigative journalism.

Justice Clifford acknowledged the possibility of a chilling effect and noted that the three statements on its nature and consequence went unchallenged by the Attorney-General’s counsel. Of course, Hager won that challenge, and one might have thought Police would have become more than a little reticent about actions against journalists and their lawful pursuits.

It is doubtful that Crown Law acted against Newsroom of its own volition. It is far more likely that Oranga Tamariki arrived on its doorstep complaining that poor children were being identified and “something has to be done”. OT had genuine concerns for these tamariki and children in general, but there is no doubt its reputation had been damaged by the Newsroom investigations.

The lengths that it has been prepared to go in pursuing Newsroom – in the complete absence of any complaint to the news organisation by any member of the public over possible identification of the children or their whanau –is  nonetheless puzzling.

Put simply, there is no evidence that children or whanua have been publicly identified and, in any event, Newsroom has had the publication of that particular part of its investigation banned. It has also incurred a very substantial financial penalty with the awarding of full costs.

A clear warning
Assuming the police action stems from a complaint emanating from OT, I am left with a nasty feeling that the result is a clear warning about delving too deeply into the agency’s activities. In other words: Don’t kick the hornet’s nest!

It has a chilling effect that extends beyond OT. What is to stop other state agencies from threatening criminal charges if they can find a convenient piece of law?

Convenient laws can be found in unlikely places. Twenty years ago, the British government tried to use the Treason Felony Act of 1848 to hammer The Guardian. The Act contained a clause making it unlawful to call for an end to the monarchy.

Editor Alan Rusbridger was on a republican campaign when he got hit from behind. The House of Lords ruled the particular clause in the Treason Felony Act had (unsurprisingly) been superseded but the action remains an object lesson on the lengths governments might go to send a message.

And some of those messages can be quite chilling.

Dr Gavin Ellis is a media consultant and researcher. A former editor-in-chief of The New Zealand Herald, he has a background in journalism and communications – covering both editorial and management roles – that spans more than half a century. This article is republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Papua New Guinea’s Supreme and National Courts in Port Moresby will be partially closed for a week beginning yesterday after a judge has been tested positive for the covid-19, reports The National.

Registrar Ian Augerea said in a statement the closure was to prevent any further infections to both judicial and administrative staff.

“During the closure, only essential staff will come to work,” he said.

“Judges will continue to work as per their individual schedules and their personal staff will continue to work to assist them. Court rooms will be closed today to allow for deep cleaning and will open on Monday for court hearings next week.

“The number of persons entering court rooms will be restricted to key people associated with a case.

“Security personnel are to ensure compliance and number of people entering court grounds be regulated.

“The building division will now commence deep-cleaning of all courtrooms, chambers and office space in the Waigani compound.

“A schedule will be issued once arrangements are in place so that all judges and staff are informed of the cleaning activity,” Augerea said.

He said the National Judiciary Staff Services Covid-19 team would be working to bring onsite test facilities for judges.

He encouraged all staff to use the free test facilities in suburban clinics.

“My office will distribute to all chambers and managers offices masks, gloves and hand sanitisers.

“All staff are encouraged to use the protective gear whilst in the office and courtrooms,” he said.

Asia Pacific Report republishes The National articles with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

By RNZ News

The man charged over the Christchurch mosque shootings last month appeared in the High Court in Christchurch today, accused of killing 50 people.

Brenton Tarrant, 28, appeared via a video link from Auckland Prison for what was a quiet, ordered hearing.

The public gallery was packed to standing capacity with members of the Muslim community and journalists from New Zealand and around the world.

READ MORE: Mosque attack victim families’ chance to see accused in court

#TheyAreUs

Armed police were outside as survivors and relatives of victims of the attack arrived at court.

Women in hijabs hugged one another as they arrived at the courtroom. Senior police officers, including Detective Inspectors Dave Lynch and Greg Murton, were seated in the front row of the public gallery.

-Partners-

The defendant was able to see the judge and lawyers and hear the proceeding but the camera was turned away from the public gallery.

His manner was calm thoughout the hearing as he intently listened to the proceedings; his screen was muted.

Single charge
It is the defendant’s second court appearance, after briefly appearing in Christchurch District Court on March 16, the day after the mosque attacks. At that hearing police had laid a single charge of murder.

He now faces 50 charges of murder and 39 of attempted murder.

Justice Cameron Mander formally recorded that a further 49 charges of murder and 39 of attempted murder had been filed by the Crown.

He noted the initial murder charge, which named a woman who was in fact alive, was to be amended and suppressed that woman’s name.

The judge also suppressed the names of the attempted murder victims.

Two Auckland lawyers, Shane Tait and Jonathan Hudson, were to represent the accused. Tait issued a brief statement last night saying the right to consult and instruct a lawyer, and the right to a fair and public hearing, were protected rights in New Zealand law.

Justice Mander ordered that two mental health reports be completed to assess the defendant’s fitness to plead. He remanded him in custody without plea to next appear on June 14.

Victim families briefed
The families of the victims of the mosque attack were briefed about the court appearance by court officials and victims’ advisors.

Media had the right to be present and report on the hearing – other than any discussions held in chambers, as is usual court procedure – but the judge had declined applications from New Zealand and overseas media to film, take photos and record sound.

The starting principle on such applications is open justice, but it is up to the judge to decide whether it is appropriate and in this case Justice Mander found it was not.

In a minute issued to media, he said he had taken into account a number of factors in reaching his decision, including the need to preserve the integrity of the trial, the role of the media, and the court’s obligations to the victims of the massacre.

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

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Al Jazeera’s Jamela Alingogan reports from Manila on a game-changing president marking six months in office. Video: AJ YouTube

Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte has said he would consider declaring martial law if the drug problem deteriorates, adding “no one can stop” him from making such a decision.

“I have to protect the Filipino people. It is my duty. And I tell you now, if I have to declare martial law, I will declare it,” Duterte told a gathering of businessmen in his hometown of Davao at the weekend.

“I don’t care about the Supreme Court. No one can stop me,” he said. “The right to preserve one’s life and my nation … transcends everything else, even the limitations.”

Under the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines, the president can declare martial law up to 60 days “in case of invasion or rebellion”.

The constitution makes no mention of drug violence as a justification for declaring it. Congress and the Supreme Court also have the power to review any such declaration.

But Duterte said that his duty “to preserve the Filipino people, and the youth of this land” is sufficient to suspend the writ of habeas corpus. 

“Not about invasion, insurrection. Not about danger. I will declare martial law to preserve my nation. Period,” he said.

Death toll continues to climb
It is not the first time that Duterte has openly discussed declaring martial law. Last Thursday he said the constitutional provision giving Congress and the Supreme Court power to review martial law declaration needed to be revised.

But he also said earlier in January that he had no plans of declaring martial law, saying it was “nonsense”, adding that it did not improve the lives of Filipinos when it was declared in the past.

In 1972, then President Ferdinand Marcos declared martial law, citing the threat of communist insurgency in the country.

In August of last year, President Duterte was angered when the Chief Justice sent him a letter questioning his decision to release the names of judges accused of links to the illegal drug trade.

“If this will continue and if you will try to stop me, then fine. Would you rather I declare martial law?” Duterte was quoted as saying.

Duterte won the May 2016 presidential election largely on a platform of fighting the illegal drug trade.

As of mid-December, less than six months into his presidency, more than 6000 people have been killed as part of that war on drugs. Dozens more have been reported killed since January 1, 2017.

Report from Al Jazeera English.