On Wednesday next week, the people of Kiribati go to the polls in the first of two votes for a new government.

The second vote is on Monday, August 19, after which nominations will be made for president with that vote to happen in September or October.

Don Wiseman spoke with RNZ Pacific correspondent in Kiribati, Rimon Rimon, and began by asking him about the slightly lower number of candidates, 114 — down from 118 four years ago.

The transcript has been edited for brevity and clarity.

Rimon Rimon: I think there will always be around this number, as each constituency has [only] a certain number of candidates who can run, depending on the population. This time round, it’s quite interesting to learn that there are three electorates that don’t need any contest because there’s only one candidate running from there, and they are the incumbent candidates.

Don Wiseman: So, a surprise?

RR: It’s quite a surprise in a sense. I haven’t seen that in my lifetime here in Kiribati. Growing up in a constituency where only one candidate enjoys no need to campaign and all that is quite new.

But I think one common element about these candidates is they are currently from the ruling party. I don’t know if that has any relevance or not, but it’s a good point to note.

DW: And a significant number more women contesting it. How successful are women normally in Kiribati elections?

RR: Well, having women in Parliament is nothing new. We’ve had that since independence. But if we’re talking about numbers, then that’s where the discussion should be.

As you understand, Kiribati is a patriarchal society. So, men usually have the upper hand when it comes to decision making. It’s quite surprising, and also a welcoming sign to see that 18 women are running in the current elections, which is a great number compared to previous elections.

This year, we are having 10 females running from the capital, which, I think, tells a lot about why these women are so motivated to run for Parliament.

DW: Because of conditions on Tarawa?

RR: I’m sure nobody just wakes up one day and says, ‘hey, I might just try this and see how it goes’. I think people are compelled to run for several reasons. One interesting fact about these women is, three of them are lawyers. I think this says a lot about the current election, and perhaps the rule of law in Kiribati.

There’s been some controversy with the judiciary, within the last term, this current administration. One of these women is a staffer with the Attorney-General Office, which is the government’s lawyer. The others run their own private legal firms, and legal firms are quite popular here with a lot of civil cases going on.

There’s a lot of jobs to be done there. But for them to forego that and run for Parliament, that tells a lot about why they are doing that. It’s really interesting to learn why, as lawyers, as women with legal backgrounds, they are running for Parliament.

DW: We’re just a week or so out from that first election on the 14th — have party positions been revealed? Does that happen in Kiribati? Or is it all local issues that candidates talk about?

RR: Party affiliation is, especially during election time, more like “the big elephant in the room”. It’s right in front of you, but nobody really mentions it because candidates running for Parliament would want to get re-elected or elected first. It’s hard to gauge, for example, for one island, which way are they aligning, to whether it’s with the current ruling party or with opposition.

It’s a safe bet for candidates when they run, and most of them are doing that, say that ‘when I get re-elected, my party affiliation will be decided by you. I will come back again with you, once I’m elected. And then I will choose my party, which you want’.

A lot of these people running I know a lot of them — these are my own personal observations. I know the affiliations, and values and principles, what they support. I know where they stand. But these can all change when they get elected because, ultimately the people decide where they want their candidate or the elected nominee to be within parliament, whether in opposition or within the government.

DW: You alluded to the issues in the judiciary and the removal of all the senior judges from the country by the government. And there have been a number of other very controversial moves by this current government. Will those matters have an impact on the election?

RR: I think they will do. But there are also other pressing issues that would really matter for the people in this election. The majority of the population in Kiribati are grassroots people, people who live in the villages, who live within communities and who think about daily subsistence lives and how to get by each day with help from the government or with policies that are provided by the government.

Those are some of the deciding factors in elections and of course, there have been controversial policies that are open for debate. The opposition saying they’re not sustainable, they just draining money and resources, without generating revenue. I think that is one of the strengths of the current ruling party, the Tobwaan Kiribati Party, or TKP, to ensure it has several policies which mainly provide “giveaways” to the people, and these are quite popular.

Regardless of whether the judiciary is intact or disengaged or degraded, or whether the economy is not performing well, or the medical healthcare is not up to par, people tend to forget about all those other important issues when the daily issue is just getting food on the table and getting by each day.

DW: Would you anticipate a change of government?

RR: There’s always two sides of the coin, Don. I’m hearing a lot of people having had enough of this government. They have taken quite a tough approach on how they introduce a lot of their policies and decisions. Some of their policies are quite draconian, especially with media and all news information. I hear a lot of people saying we should have something new.

But then of course, the other half of the population, or people that I’ve been speaking to, especially in South Tarawa, here at the capital, are quite happy with the government’s performance and would like to see another four years of their reign in government. This all due to the policies that they give out, especially the giveaways.

DW: Now the giveaways. You’ve referred to these a few times.

RR: I talked about them because in Kiribati we are a least developing country, a Third World country. We don’t really have a social welfare benefit for our citizens. So, parties have tried to introduce that within their campaigns. The only social welfare benefit that all the people agree on is the elders’ fund. So, once you reach a certain age, and elders are quite respected in our culture, they get a monthly sum of money from the government.

Now, these [other] giveaways I’ve been talking about, it’s a signature of this current government’s policy. They call it the unemployment fund, which basically gives away A$50 to each person, each individual within the age of 18 to 59. These are, as you understand the voting ages of groups, and people find this very popular, in favour of the government, because they are getting money every month.

The other thing that I have been referring to as a giveaway is the copra money. We’ve had reports and advice from credible institutions like the World Bank, and the IMF, saying that subsidising copra money by the government cannot go any further than A$1 [per kilogram]. This government has brought that up to $4 and it’s quite popular. We’re seeing a lot of people going back to the outer islands and cutting copra, but these kinds of things constitute a big chunk of the economy.

The budget at certain times in this four years’ term, the government has had to rebalance the budget because it’s in deficit. These have been critical issues that the opposition have always been raising; that the key policies that this government is introducing or advocating, are not sustainable. Those are the kinds of things that are facing people nowadays, when they elect their government, choosing between those kinds of policies or some alternative.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Vanuatu’s outgoing president, Obed Moses Tallis, has urged the government not to abolish the Ministry of Justice, warning against a “dictatorial system”.

His opening speech to Parliament’s first “ordinary” session of 2022 is his final duty of his mandate which will end in July.

“In my observation during my five-year term as a Head of State, the judiciary in Vanuatu under the leadership of Chief Justice has played an important role in stability, growth and progress of the nation for it uniqueness of it its independency,” he said.

“To cherish the stages of the third pillar of the constitution, I urge the government to carefully consider its decision to abolish the Ministry of Justice.

“It is important that the government maintain the Ministry of Justice. Without the judiciary, there will no effective work from the government and there will be no prosecution.

“The work of the Vanuatu Police force will have no bases and there will be a dictatorial system in place,” he said.

In his speech, Tallis also praised the country’s frontline workers for their hard work during the community outbreak of covid-19.

Frontline workers risked lives
He said frontline workers risked their lives and their families by being exposed to the virus.

He also hailed their efforts in challenging disinformation about the omicron variant.

Tallis said the hard work of the frontline workers had contributed to stabilising the outbreak in the affected provinces.

Meanwhile, Vanuatu’s Ministry of Health reports 37 new cases of covid-19.

Tallis told Parliament Vanuatu had gone through several challenges because of the covid pandemic.

He acknowledged the tourism sector for its contribution to the recovery of Vanuatu’s economy.

“Tourism has contributed a lot to economic growth but the only problem is that it is a fragile industry and cannot sustain us during total border restrictions which restricted the mobility and the movement of the tourists.

Tourism a ‘fragile industry’
“We experienced a high rate of unemployment with the closure of hotels and caused financial difficulties of the family.

“The other reason why I am saying that tourism is a fragile industry is the ongoing climate change impact across the globe which could affect this industry.

“In my humble view, I want to see government to invest more in vibrant industry such as agriculture, fisheries and utilising the natural resources in land and marine,” Tallis said.

He acknowledged government initiatives to redirect its focus in the agriculture sector and the programme of coconut replanting and cattle restocking and the establishment of the connection of the cooperative to the local farmers in order to participate effectively in the country’s economic growth.

The Prime Minister, Bob Loughman, and the Leader of the opposition, Ralph Regenvanu, both thanked Tallis for his role as Head of State during his five-year mandate.

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

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.

It has become obvious in recent weeks that the strategy of Samoa’s oldest political party is to “repeat a lie long enough that it becomes the truth”.

And these untruths have been disbursed through multiple platforms: television, radio and social media as well as through protest marches and vehicle convoys.

It explains why the former prime minister and Human Rights Protection Party (HRPP) leader, Tuila’epa Dr Sa’ilele Malielegaoi and his party deputy, Fonotoe Pierre Lauofo, have been on air lately, as part of a party-led crusade to disparage the judiciary, following the Appellate Court’s decision last month to install the Fa’atuatua i le Atua Samoa ua Tasi (FAST) government.

Last week the Ministry of Justice and Courts Administration (MJCA) felt compelled to set the record straight — in the face of a slew of misinformation by the HRPP leadership recently — on the 23 July 2021 judgment of the Appellate Court and where the court views the position of the Head of State in relation to the Constitution.

Perhaps, the former prime minister needs to be reminded again of the position that the Head of State occupies under the Constitution, as laid out by the Appellate Court’s ruling:

“It may not be a well-known fact that the Head of State, except as otherwise provided in the Constitution, has no option but to comply with the advice of the Cabinet or the Prime Minister; such advice is deemed to be accepted by the Head of State after a period of 7 days.

“Respectfully, the Head of States authority is to do what he is told to do by Cabinet or the Prime Minister as his responsible Minister.

“He is like everyone else, a servant of the Constitution, not its Master.”

— (Paragraph 60 of the court’s decision notes.)

So aren’t we blessed that our forefathers foresaw what could come many years later — when a sitting prime minister could have illegally used a Head of State to usurp the powers of the Constitution — and therefore drafted in the provisions to ensure the Head of State remains subservient to the Cabinet or the Prime Minister (not a caretaker cabinet or caretaker prime minister) at all times?

One thing we know for sure is Tuila’epa and Fonotoe have been cherry-picking the courts’ judgments to suit their party’s political agenda, which is why the MJCA felt the need to release a statement last week to point out the role of the courts as the guardians of the Constitution.

So what is the endgame for these two notable politicians, one a former prime minister and the other a former deputy prime minister, as they persist in churning out flawed interpretations of the court’s judgement?

We ask this question because both have reached the highest echelons of political power in Samoa, one as a prime minister and the other deputy prime minister, and basked in the glory that came with their terms in office including the triumphs of successive HRPP governments over the years.

Speaking on TV1 Samoa’s Good Morning Samoa programme on Wednesday, Fonotoe claimed “Samoa is slipping into a failed state” and then unleashed a barrage of untruths on how the judiciary is “causing the erosion of the Constitution” and “effectively putting itself above Parliament” on the televised show.

And this is from a politician who has practised as a lawyer and made submissions as a barrister before the same court, which he and party boss continue to disrespect to this very day with their Machiavellian commentary, following their party’s loss at the April general election.

But then how can Samoa be a failed state when the international community immediately stepped forward with congratulatory messages for the FAST government and Samoa’s first female Prime Minister, Fiame Naomi Mata’afa after the Appellate Court handed down its 23 July 2021 ruling?

The international community showed total confidence in the ability of our judiciary to rule without fear or favour to resolve the three-month-long constitutional crisis, and this was demonstrated by their acceptance of the court’s judgement.

Therefore, the call by Tuilaepa for the international community to assist “restore Samoa’s democracy to where it should be” appears to be at best tongue-in-cheek, consigned to the annals of Samoan political history.

How can he be taken seriously as a leader on the international stage when history now shows how him and his party members tried to manipulate the Constitution to prolong their illegal tenure in office?

Nonetheless the highest court in the land has spoken, let’s respect the wisdom of its judgement and enable the new government to get on with the job of governing, and delivering on its promises to the people of this nation.

If you haven’t noticed storm clouds have been gathering recently and the people want their government to be ready to tackle these challenges, so if you have nothing positive to contribute, then it is in the public’s interest that you step aside and let those who’ve been given the mandate to lead take charge.

This Samoa Observer editorial was published on 13 August 2021. It is republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

The New Zealand government says it has full confidence Samoa’s new government and its judiciary will continue to act with integrity.

This comes after former prime minister, Tuila’epa Sa’ilele Malielegaoi, claimed that the recent actions of the judiciary had “shattered” the constitution and the law of the jungle now applied.

Tuila’epa claimed the rulings by the Court of Appeal, which last month confirmed FAST as the legitimately elected government, had destabilised the country.

He castigated New Zealand and Australia for not speaking out in support of his position.

But, in a statement, the Foreign Minister Nanaia Mahuta reiterated New Zealand’s backing for the new government of Fiame Naomi Mata’afa as the legitimate government of Samoa.

She said New Zealand’s recognition of the FAST government was swift and unequivocal, and that New Zealand had faith in the judicial and law enforcement systems to act appropriately, as they have done since the election on April 9.

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

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Veteran Samoan parliamentarian and chairman of the Fa’atuatua i le Atua Samoa ua Tasi (FAST) has criticised what he characterises as the “extreme” and “defamatory” behaviour of the former Prime Minister of Samoa since losing government.

Speaking during his programme Ia Ao Samoa yesterday, La’auli Leuatea Schmidt said he was “appalled” by the actions of Tuila’epa Dr Sa’ilele Malielegaoi and his party, especially their “unfounded accusations” towards Samoa’s Chief Justice.

Tuila’epa and the Human Rights Protection Party (HRPP) have so far staged two separate “peaceful protests” to protest what they claim to be the “disintegration” of the Constitution.

Hundreds of people were seen marching in unison, singing together with posters held up in the air.

Some messages were directed explicitly at Satiu Simativa Perese, asking him to step down from the role of Chief Justice.

The Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries believes that Tuila’epa and his party have “gone too far” with their actions.

‘Whole new level’
“I have seen that the level of criticism from them (HRPP) has been upgraded. It has gone up to a whole new level and it’s disappointing [to see],” said La’auli.

“They used to sit here while we were on the other side.

“[And] back then they have been accusing us of so many things, yet we have never gone up to this level.

“This is extreme…what we are seeing right now, their actions and the things they have said is extreme.”

In saying that, La’auli said they are well-aware of all the accusations made by Tuila’epa and his party so far.

However, he flatly denied the claims from the Opposition Leader.

“The comments and remarks they have made are not only impolite, rude, unfounded but also have gone without barriers,” he said.

“I mean, we (FAST) have got used to the way he communicates and the blaming game from him [Tuilaepa].

‘Brainwashed our people’
“But what is sad to see is that they have manipulated and brainwashed our people and exploited our people to achieve their agenda. It’s disappointing to see.”

La’auli believes that the actions from the opposition side of government are causing “unnecessary hatred” among Samoans.

“The level of defamatory remarks has gone above and beyond, without barriers. They’ve made accusations so many times before to ruin the name of our leader, our party, and myself,” he said.

“But now, they are targeting the judiciary.

“I’m appalled at the things they have come up, with especially what they have said.

“It’s sad to see it coming from people who used to lead the country and from someone who was the Prime Minister.

“But I guess they don’t care anymore and have gone as far as trying to destroy the constitution and the judiciary. They have cursed our judiciary and have come up with all those baseless accusations towards the one pillar we are relying on to keep the peace within the country

‘Extraordinary defamation’
“The level of defamation is extraordinary.

“But the question is, who are they to question the work done by the panel of judges in Samoa?

“Were they appointed under the Constitution to question the work of our judges? Are they liable under the constitution to question the roles of judges? Is that their job? I don’t think so.

“Samoa’s highest courts have delivered their decision, so I do not understand why they are still questioning that.

“It seems like they are trying to imply that they are superior and that they are smarter than our judges.”

La’auli said the opposition side has been doing nothing but “wrong moves” since they stepped down.

Moreover, La’auli said, he had already tasked an “investigative team” to look into all the accusations made by the opposition leader and members towards the Chief Justice, judiciary and the FAST government.

‘Criticism has skyrocketed’
“Because the level of criticism has skyrocketed, we need to do something. Therefore, I had already called on our investigation team and asked them to go out and gather all the claims and accusations made by them and bring them all in.

“We will deal with all the unfounded accusations later on.

“At the moment we need to bring and gather them all in, and while we don’t want to waste our time to go and face them (HRPP) there will come a time where we will take all of them to court, that’s the best way to deal with this.

“We will leave it in the good hands of our police and judiciary.

“If they (HRPP) have the guts to break the law then they should also be bold and ready to stand before the court.

“They (HRPP) have exploited our people to achieve their goals.”

‘Tarnishing Samoa’s Constitution’
La’auli accused Tuila’epa of “tarnishing Samoa’s Constitution”.

“How can he accuse other people of destroying the Constitution when it has been greatly damaged under his leadership.,” he asked.

“You only need to look at all the amendments he made over the years, only to destroy and amend them again if it doesn’t work the way he expects it to work.

“So to say that we and the Chief Justice have destroyed our Constitutions is ironic. Because that’s exactly what he has been doing.

“The amendments made under his leadership and under his orders have not only tarnished our Constitution, but also the good work and sacrifice of our forefathers.”

Sialai Sarafina Sanerivi is a Samoa Observer journalist. Republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Samoa’s incoming leader has condemned the actions of the former government and demanded it hand over power.

Fiame Naomi Mata’afa, speaking formally as the country’s elected prime minister, slammed the behaviour of Tuila’epa Sa’ilele Malielegaoi and his Human Rights Protection Party (HRPP).

Fiame’s FAST party, which won 26 seats in last month’s election – a majority of one, and the previous ruling party, HRPP, are waiting for the Supreme Court to rule on several contentious issues.

Speaking in a broadcast from FAST headquarters, Fiame said MPs and officials must move from their roles and offices and allow the public service to focus on its work in a business like and orderly way.

She warned the 25 HRPP MPs they must take steps to have themselves sworn in or risk being forced into byelections.

Fiame also said the recent attacks on the judiciary by the caretaker prime minister, Tuila’epa, and some government officials, had severely undermined the rule of law.

She called this “a perversity” and said it would be addressed shortly, “make no mistake”.

‘Severely undermined by corruption, abuse …’
“While all of democracy’s checks and balances and the public officeholders meant to protect us, have been severely undermined by corruption, nepotism and the abuse of power, help is on the way as we move into a time for restoration and revival,” she said.

Fiame, though, praised the previous achievements of Tuila’epa.

She said his legacy was a remarkable one, both nationally and internationally, for which the country is grateful, but it was being undermined by Tuila’epa’s recent actions.

“The more disruptive and disrespectful you become the more that unique legacy is diminished and tarnished, by your own words and your own deeds,” she said.

“Please think of our people and allow our government to take the reins of power from you, peacefully, respectfully and honourably.”

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

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Samoa’s Attorney-General has recalled a scathing media release questioning the integrity of the country’s judiciary.

The release demanded that the judges appointed to hear an election appeal be disqualified because of, it was claimed, the judges’ alleged potential conflicts of interest and potential favouritism.

“There is now substantive evidence before our office that is questioning the appearance of impartiality and integrity of the judiciary presiding over this matter,” the statement said.

The release added that it was also apparent that the FAST party leader was a close relative of the Chief Justice Satiu Simativa Perese.

But last evening, a brief statement was sent out in the Attorney-General’s name, which said the release was not authorised and apologised for what it called an unfortunate situation.

Tuila’epa offers dialogue with FAST – but still wants new poll
Samoa’s caretaker prime minister said he and his Human Rights Protection Party had held out “an olive branch” to the majority Faatuatua I Le Atua Samoa ua Tasi (FAST) Party so that the political impasse could be resolved.

On his weekly TV3 programme, Tuila’epa Sa’ilele Malielegaoi reached out to FAST’s leadership for a dialogue to resolve matters.

But it came with a caveat – if the HRPP withdraws petitions in the courts, and FAST does so too, the country can go back to the polls.

“That is what it is now, and it is not hard trying to resolve what’s happening. We can easily withdraw our petitions from the court and we should go back to the polling booths,” said Tuila’epa.

That is despite FAST winning the April 9 election by a single seat.

Tuila’epa added that the last resort was the court, but with the recent judgements by the judiciary HRPP did not believe in their independence anymore.

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

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Samoa’s deepening political crisis has taken yet another turn today after the Attorney-General’s office launched an astounding attack on the country’s judiciary.

The Supreme Court hearing over whether the swearing in of the FAST party outside Parliament was legitimate has been adjourned to next week after the Attorney-General’s office called for the withdrawal of all local judges, citing potential conflicts of interest.

In a media statement, the Attorney-General’s office said the actions of the judiciary was “concerning” after the Chief Justice had tried to open the locked doors of Parliament on Monday.

Hearing adjourned in Samoa over whether FAST Party’s ad hoc swearing in was constitutional. Video: TVNZ News

This came after the Supreme Court had ruled Parliament must sit on Monday but that was ignored by the Speaker of Parliament and incumbent Prime Minister Tuila’epa Sa’ilele Malielegaoi who ordered Parliament closed.

The Attorney-General’s office alleged Chief Justice Satiu Simativa Perese may be in contempt of Parliament and “as the Chief Justice, the caretaker Speaker and staff are not subject to court jurisdiction as per the law”.

Another case which was to be heard by the Court of Appeal over the extra creation of a seat to meet the minimum 10 percent requirement of women in Parliament is also on hold until next week.

Again the Attorney-General’s office said local judges had a “potential conflict of interest and potential favouritism” as all four cases between the FAST party and HRPP had been ruled against HRPP.

In court today, the Chief Justice asked on what authority the Attorney-General’s office had to dictate the work of the judiciary.

He said the Supreme Court would rule next week over whether there was any merit to the recusal or withdrawal of judges.

Republished with the author’s permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Accusations have surfaced alleging the current National Party leadership conspired to politically destroy Jami-Lee Ross – this after details of his affair with a fellow party MP became known to them. The allegations raise serious questions. Those questions include: what did National’s leader and deputy leader know and when did they find out?

A sworn-to timeline of events is now essential so that the public interest can be satisfied. This must be a crucial element that is cemented in to the methodology of Simon Bridges’ inquiry into the culture of the National Party. Above all, it must be independent and publicly accessible.

The inquiry must examine the National leadership team’s actions and culture, test whether they acted in a proper and timely manner, and assess whether their actions considered a concern for the welfare and mental health of an MP they had previously supported, promoted, and embedded within their leadership team.

It follows that allegations suggesting a “hit job” was orchestrated from inside the National Party leadership must also be independently explored.

If the inquiry finds that either the leader, or deputy leader, was part of a destructive and inhumane attack on Jami-Lee Ross – while it was known that he was at high risk of being pushed over the edge, was ill, and verging on suicide – and that they acted without reasonable regard for his welfare, then it must be accepted by the National Party caucus, its membership and the public, that this National leadership team is at the very least morally bankrupt.

This inquiry ought to be conducted amidst a background whereby Ross declared his role in the destructive side of politics; following the orders of Sir John Key, Bill English, Paula Bennett and Simon Bridges. Ross was afterall a ‘numbers man’ for Bridges, and benefitted from the patronage that the Bridges-Bennett leadership team offered.

There are a number of ‘ifs’ in this analysis, but the public interest demands that they be considered.

The allegations have surfaced on the blog-site Whaleoil which is owned and edited by controversial writer Cameron Slater.

Some may dismiss the allegations on the basis of tribalism, or ignore the allegations because Slater was centrally involved in National’s so called Dirty Politics as revealed in 2014. But the nature of the allegations are as serious as they get in politics, and, if accurate played a part in the sudden deterioration of Jami-Lee Ross’ mental health, the sectioning of Ross for his own protection, and the erasion of credibility of a potential political opponent who was determined to continue as a critical member of New Zealand’s Parliament.

This analysis’ argument suggests any such bias, on behalf by Cameron Slater’s opponents, ought to be ethically and morally put aside until such a time as the truth and facts are tested. Such an inquiry, preferably judicial but essentially independent, must be robust and critical in its analysis.

To reiterate; numerous elements of this saga elevate the issues to a matter of serious public interest.

And it must be noted at this juncture, that the party’s leader Simon Bridges insists he has acted appropriately and denies taking part in any political “hit job”.

Let’s examine what Evening Report has learned from contacts close to events.

Alleged details of events between Saturday-Sunday October 20-21

There is a txt-chain of events that investigators can forensically examine that are central to understanding who was involved in the sectioning of Jami-Lee Ross.

If the txts are examined they will determine if it is fact that the National Party MP, with whom Jami-Lee Ross had a three-year affair, rang the Police and that as a consequence of that call the Police used mental health laws to take Jami-Lee Ross into custody and contain him within the mental health unit at Counties Manukau Health.

Txts will also show whether it is fact that the female MP then called Simon Bridges’ chief of staff at 9:15pm on Saturday October 20 informing him of the events. If so Bridges’ office was aware of an alleged suicide attempt. Investigators would then be able to assess whether a txt message from Jami-Lee Ross’ psychologist, who Evening Report understands messaged Jami-Lee Ross at 9:28pm on Saturday October 20, asking if he was ok, and that the psychologist had minutes prior received a txt message from Jamie Gray, Simon Bridges’ chief of staff.

It is a matter of public record that Simon Bridges appeared on NewsHub’s AM Show on Tuesday October 23, denying all knowledge of events on the Saturday night – that is until a wider grouping within the National Party became privy to what had happened to Jami-Lee Ross.

It appears reasonable to form an opinion that Bridges’ chief of staff would have informed the leader of such an event. If he didn’t, why didn’t he inform Bridges?

The sectioning of Jami-Lee Ross ended a week where many National Party MPs, and a wider network of those loyal to the party, appeared to be actively orchestrating a coordinated campaign to destroy the so-called rogue MP’s political chances and to discredit his claims of corruption within the National Party leadership. Had Jami-Lee Ross abused his position as the senior whip within the party? It certainly appears so. Did he abuse the power he was afforded? Media reports would suggest this was so. Did he have an affair with at least two women? Yes. But it appears that the public attacks began, not at the time when senior members of the party were informed of Ross’ actions, but, once Ross began to attack the leadership. This is significant.

An Opposition’s Role As The Public’s Advocate

As senior representatives of New Zealand’s Legislature, leader Simon Bridges and deputy leader Paula Bennett can arguably be regarded as the public’s advocates within Parliament. Their job is to keep the Executive Government on its toes, challenge its policy and rationale, to be Parliament’s keepers of the public’s interest.

As such, the public deserves to know if the leaders, as a team or individually, conspired to destroy the political chances of an MP and former colleague, who they considered to have gone rogue, and who they knew was suffering a crisis of mental health so serious that it could have ended in death.

It is in consideration of the public interest, that this editorial is written.

We now know as fact, Jami-Lee Ross had a three year affair with a South Island-based National MP.[name withheld]. Like him, she has two children and was married.

While the affair was going ‘well’, contacts inside the National Party have told Evening Report that Jami-Lee encouraged Bridges to promote his lover above her standing and reputation in caucus, well above some high profile MPs like National’s Chris Bishop who are respected among colleagues and media and seen to have been doing their job well. The promotion was seen to give leverage, to sure up the numbers to stabilise Bridges’ and Bennett’s leadership team at a time when they sensed support was delicate.

Meanwhile, Jami-Lee Ross continued to pull in big donations from wealthy Chinese residents in his Botany electorate. As a reward, Bridges embedded him into his inner core, the top three. Politically, this is really an unsound move by a political leader. With Ross being senior whip, he is supposed to be directed by the leader to pull MPs into line, to do the leader’s bidding, and to do this without necessarily knowing the deep and dark details underlying the leader’s moves.

In effect, with Jami-Lee Ross becoming a central figure, knowing all the details, the dirt, the strategy and tactics, it centralised too much power into the whip position and elevated a real danger of a whip using the position for his own gain. To reiterate, this appears a seriously stupid move of Bridges and Bennett to pull a whip in on their machinations. And, in a significant contact’s view, it appears they risked this because Jami-Lee was pulling in the donor money.

Jami-Lee Ross had been on the rise for a time. Former Prime Minister John Key promoted him to the whips office. Then PM Bill English secured Ross’s rise by maintaining and elevating his whip role. Bridges and Bennett further empowered Jami-Lee Ross by cementing him into the whip position, a move that suggested National’s power-politicians were well satisfied with his service.

It’s hard to tell how far back it was when Jami-Lee Ross began to record Bridges. And, at this juncture, it’s difficult to know if he recorded Bennett as well. The public is left to fathom whether it was when his affair with the National MP went sour and perhaps Ross sensed Bennett having become close to her.

In any event, when Jami-Lee Ross fell out with his colleague and lover, sources say Bennett played a crucial role in the analysis of his conduct, in particular women who had allegedly been burned by Ross. Two women, contacts inside National state, were staff of the National Party leader. The MP (whom Ross had a three-year affair with) and the two staff members are said by National Party contacts to be the subject of NewsRoom.co.nz’s investigation into Ross’ activities, an investigation that is believed to have spanned up to one year in duration. Evening Report raises this aspect as the public interest demands to consider whether it is reasonable to believe that two staffers in the leader’s office never told nor informed Bridges, or the chief of staff, that they were cooperating in a media investigation into the leader’s chief and senior whip?

Contacts state that Bennett gained the women’s confidence, received information so it could be prepared as part of a disciplinary process. Did Bennett choose to engage media with this information? If so, once media received the information, what involvement did the deputy leader have or continue to have, or engage with, the complainants and media?

Sources inside National state Bennett then seeded info about Jami-Lee Ross having had an affair. They point to her having hinted at behaviour unbecoming of a married member of Parliament during an interview before TV, radio and print journalists. Did she do this without Bridges knowing or being forewarned.

If true, in effect, this would have driven the narrative ahead of the leader. If so, it is reasonable to fathom that a senior politician would know Bridges would be forced to defend the character-attack campaign that appeared orchestrated and designed to destroy Ross. Amidst the firestorm, National MP Maggie Barry spoke out against Ross with significant indignation. This will have been digested by the public that National had expelled a human predator from its midst. It also gave the impression National’s female caucus members were unified. However, respected MP Nikki Kaye kept out of it. Why?

Next, Bridges was forced to field political journalists’ questions about breaking the old convention that you keep affairs and family issues under the covers.

Bridges was then compelled to inform media that he had “told off” his deputy leader for giving credence that an affair had been ongoing between Ross and a Nat MP. This made Bridges look even weaker.

The future of National’s leadership

National Party contacts suggest Bridges is positioned where he will be forced to absorb the political fallout for what is seen by some as a character assassination campaign gone wrong. One contact states that once Bridges is rendered useless, and the issue dies down, Bennett herself will be well positioned to remove Bridges as leader in 2019.

It is reasonable to form an opinion that senior National MP Judith Collins will also be available if the leadership were to fall vacant. Her popularity is again on the rise.

At this juncture, for Bridges and Bennett, it appears wise for them to expect more National Party dirt to emerge before the end of the year. Evening Report’s sources say: “ample dirt lingers just below the surface.”

For a party that once stated it had no factions, it certainly seems its personality factions are now in all-out political warfare.

Judith Collins’ star has been rising since she returned to the front-bench in opposition. And it has been bolstered by a favourable Colmar Brunton Poll. It’s fair to suggest she has laid heavy hits on Labour’s Housing Minister Phil Twyford. As a consequence, her standing within the caucus has improved. On investigation, it is clear she has not had the loyalty of Jami-Lee Ross since he was promoted by John Key. He, along with Mark Mitchell, then supported Bill English for the leadership. Bennett and Mitchell are politically close. It does appear that moves by some media to connect Jami-Lee Ross’ revelations with a Judith Collins plan as not based on fact.

While there’s an expectation among interested public that Collins will be the next leader, she will need the support of what’s left of National’s social conservatives and those loyal to Nikki Kaye.

For Collins to succeed, she will have to be seen to inoculate the party from damaging information that may be in the possession of Jami-Lee Ross. All the while, she, like Bennett, needs Bridges to continue to fail as a leader.

It is fair to accept, the recordings and damaging information are now with Cam Slater and Simon Lusk. It is also reasonable to suggest that Bridges is a disappointment to some who once supported his bid for leadership. Cam Slater is clearly appalled at what he refers to as a “hit job”.

Slater is adamant that he is not motivated by an agenda, nor by a pitch by a fiscal conservative faction to gain leadership of the National party. Rather he said, he is motivated to help an old friend who the current leadership moved to destroy. He added on his blog-site, if the current leadership continues “to lie” he will continue to reveal the truth.

Meanwhile, Jami-Lee Ross is being reassured and cared for by a mutual friend of his and Slater’s who is a pastor with the Seventh Day Adventists.

Contacts say, with regard to Jami-Lee Ross and his National Party former lover and colleague, the three year affair was a relationship that in the end didn’t deliver what either banked on – despite promotions and connections and having benefitted politically from their association.

It’s fair to say, Jami-Lee Ross was out of his experiential depth and in part abusive from the point of view of how to handle political power, networks and consensual relationships.

Two other women who laid complaints about Ross, worked in the leader’s office.

Bridges is adamant he didn’t know about the abuse of power nor the complaints. Did Bennett know? At what point was she privy to the information?

One National Party contact said: “It defies reasonable belief that Bridges didn’t know.”

It is right that Bridges has initiated an inquiry into National’s culture. But that in itself falls short or what the public interest demands. Why? Because the inquiry reports back to Bridges, who as leader may well be one of the protagonists. Also, the report will not be released to the public which leaves it as a golden prize, the holy grail, for any journalist and, irrespective of who it damns or exonerates, will become a currency for any MP with leadership ambitions.

As it now stands, Bridges’ worst nightmare must be not knowing what Jami-Lee Ross recorded and at what point did he begin taping the National Party leader’s conversations.

If those recordings contain further embarrassing or damaging content and references, then he will be finished as leader. Bridges, as leader, even if he has a clear conscience, must be wracking his memory as to past conversations and comments while knowing the conversations may be in the hands of people with whom he has lost their trust.

And the question remains unanswered: Was Paula Bennett recorded as well?

If her actions are found by inquirers to have led an orchestrated political response to Jami-Lee Ross’ revelations, whether that be at the behest or otherwise of the current leader, then this will destroy any higher ambitions that she may have ever contemplated.

It follows, that if the report concludes that the rot inside National extends to its current leadership, then it may well be that Judith Collins will become the leader of the National Party, unopposed.

Whatever the future holds for the National Party, it is in everyone’s interests that an independent judicial investigation into this National affair be conducted in a spirit of openness and propriety.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Evening Report invites any individual connected to this analysis to have a right of reply. Footnote: Interview between the author and Jami-Lee Ross on his role as a new National Party MP (August 13 2012):

ANALYSIS: By Wadan Narsey in Suva

In 2016, two of Fiji’s main media organisations, the privately owned The Fiji Times and state-owned Fiji Broadcasting Corporation, came to public attention, for the wrong reasons — laws regarding ethnic sensibilities in multiracial Fiji.

The international community needs to note that taken together, they call into question the neutrality of Fiji’s prosecuting, regulating and defending institutions.

I make no statement on the neutrality of the judiciary presiding on the case currently — the public can make their own minds up when the judgments are given.

The Fiji Times (Na Lalakai)
On the 27 April 2016, Nai Lalakai (the Fijian vernacular publication owned and published by The Fiji Times) printed an article by one Josaia Waqabaca who pointed out that a petition had been handed to Aiyaz Khaiyum (Fiji’s Attorney-General) to either engage in a “veisorosorovi” (a formal indigenous Fijian reconciliation) with indigenous Fijians or leave Fiji.

The article also alleged:

“The Muslims are not indigenous Fijians. These people are the very ones who have invaded various countries, including Bangladesh in India, and have committed murder there and raped the women and abused their children, until they have come to power, and are now in possession of it.”

The generalisations about Muslims are abhorrent to most decent Fiji citizens and me, while the statement conveniently ignores that some indigenous Fijians are also Muslims.

The Director of Public Prosecutions promptly pressed charges, not just against the article’s author (Waqabaca) and the editor of Nai Lalakai editor (Anare Ravula), but also against the editor of the English language daily, The Fiji Times (Fred Wesley), to whom Ravula reports to, the Fiji Times publisher (Hank Arts) and Fiji Times Limited as well.

The charge was that they made or caused to be published, a statement in the iTaukei language Nai Lalakai newspaper that was likely to incite dislike, hatred or antagonism of the Muslim community.

While the original charges were laid in August 2016 with Magistrate Shageeth Somaratne presiding, the case has dragged on (justice delayed is justice denied?), with the presiding judge being changed at least once.

Opposing the bail variation for Arts
The DPP’s Office has subjected itself to even great public scrutiny through their opposition to a request for a bail variation by publisher Hank Arts.

The State Prosecutor and Deputy DPP (Lee Burney) alleged that the charges against publisher Hank Arts were “serious” and he should not be allowed to travel to New Zealand for two weeks.

No doubt the presiding judge will decide whether the charges against Arts are serious.

But why on earth would the DPP’s Office think that this responsible elderly citizen, who has not a hint of a criminal record, might abscond in New Zealand?

Arts had even offered his two properties in Fiji and his FNPF balance as surety, basically his life savings.

Even more, two prominent Fiji businessmen with unquestionable reputations in Fiji (David Aidney and Jinesh Patel), had also agreed to be Arts’ surety and not travel abroad while he was away.

But not just the previous magistrate, but also the current judge, Justice Thushara Rajasinghe, concluded that these financially massive sureties were not enough to grant the bail variation.

The judge’s judgment cannot be called into question by mere mortals like me.

But the treatment of Hank Arts and Fred Wesley by the DPP’s Office is extraordinary when viewed alongside the contrasting treatment accorded to the CEO of the government-owned Fiji Broadcasting Corporation (FBC) in a comparable situation of the division of responsibility between the producer/editor and the CEO.

Is FBC privileged?
In November 2016, complaints were made by members of the public (Peter Waqavonovono, Seni Nabou and Jope Tarai) against the state-owned Fiji Broadcasting Corporation to the Police, Media Industry Development Authority (MIDA) and the Fiji Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Commission (FHRADC), about the allegedly racist contents of an FBC programme Wasea Bhasha in which the host Nemani Bainivalu said in the Fijian vernacular words to the effect that Fijian education was lagging because:

* iTaukei did not speak English; some teachers drank grog all night and came to work lazy; if only iTaukei boys concentrated on their studies and not play, they too could reach universities and graduate.

Bainivalu is also supposed to have said that  “many iTaukei boys roam around in the night with their mobile phones, wasting time”  and that  “Indo-Fijian boys and girls do not roam around in the night”.

The complainants claimed that the content was tantamount to “explicit racism” insinuating that iTaukei people are inferior because they fail in universities because they spend more time participating in sports and that iTaukei people are academically poor because they do not know how to read in English.

The Citizens’ Constitutional Forum issued a statement noting that “promoting broad generalised comparisons between Fiji’s major ethnic groups without facts to base them is irresponsible journalism.” The CCF urged MIDA follow on with necessary investigations and recourse.

The Leader of the Opposition in Parliament, Ro Kepa, called on the CEO of FBC to resign and for an investigation to be made.

The Leader of the opposition National Federation Party (NFP), Professor Biman Prasad,  asked if MIDA was being neutral and asked him to resign from one of his two posts so that he could do an effective job.

Government reactions
The Chairman of MIDA and FHRCAD Ashwin Raj stated that that the Wasea Bhasha episode contained generalisations and stereotypes that lacked “accuracy, balance and fairness about social progress of the iTaukei community”.

But he concluded that “the programme failed to meet the threshold for inciting communal discord.. There was no overt call to violence. …  there is no pattern of hostility towards any community…  The journalist has offered a public apology in all of the three major languages admitting negligence on his part as the producer and presenter of the programme.”

Raj determined that the issue would not be referred to the Media Tribunal.

The Director of Public Prosecutions (New Zealander Christopher Pryde) considered laying charges against the Wasea Bhasha producer and presenter (Bainivalu), the chief executive officer (Vimlesh Sagar), and the acting manager (Mohammed Faiyaz Khan).

He concluded: “In order for a charge of inciting communal antagonism to succeed, the broadcast must have been of such a nature and sufficiently egregious to justify the sanction of the criminal law. In other words, the broadcast must do more than simply insult or cause offence to people. .. the item does not reach the necessary threshold for a reasonable prospect of conviction were the matter to go to trial”.

He announced regally “I decline to sanction a prosecution”.

Contrasting the two cases
It is clear that many indigenous Fijians took offence at the ethnic generalisations.

But I might even largely agree with the sentiments expressed by Cristopher Pryde and Ashwin Raj on the content of the sentences being translated by Nemani Bainivalu, Bainivalu’s statements were made as examples in a mere language translation programme, probably based on Nemani Bainivalu’s own personal observations and views. They were not presented as definitive statements by an FBC expert on the issues.

My personal view is that some of Bainivalu’s statements on ethnic behavioural differences are probably correct in general (for example the detrimental effects of not speaking English, drinking grog excessively, playing sports excessively) and can be backed by survey data from the Fiji Bureau of Statistics and Ministry of Education.

One of Bainivalu’s statements is anecdotal (which ethnic community in general roams around more at night) while one is probably incorrect (which ethnic community wastes more time on mobile phones).

But the real issue is not the content of Bainivalu’s translation examples, but the contrasting approaches taken by DPP Pryde and MIDA Chairman Raj to the Fiji Times case, as to who exactly are charged for mistakes made by subordinates.

The approach with FBC
In the FBC case, it is reported that the DPP considered laying charges against the Wasea Bhasha producer and host Nemani Bainivalu (as expected), but only against the acting chief executive officer Vimlesh Sagar and the acting manager Mohammed Faiyaz Khan.

There was no mention of the possible charging of the CEO of FBC, Riyaz Khaiyum or even of the board members of the FBC or the relevant government minister who are ultimately responsible for FBC, just as some Patels are owners of The Fiji Times and are being charged.

Riyaz Khaiyum hedged that it was an “unfortunate choice of words by the producer/presenter that was in total contradiction to the intention and policy of FBC as a responsible national broadcaster”.

When asked if FBC TV has checks and balances in place for the program before it goes on air, Riyaz Sayed-Khaiyum easily passed the buck, alleging that Nemani Bainivalu eventually became responsible for the content of the show, implying that he himself, the CEO or his organization was not in any way responsible.

While the DPP thought that the charges against the FBC were not “egregious” enough (Pryde’s obfuscating version of “outstandingly bad” or “shocking”), the FBC CEO Riyaz Khaiyum thought it bad enough to terminate Bainivalu’s contract.

FBC then ran a slot on TV in English, Fijian and Hindi in which Bainivalu admitted abjectly that he had “acted irresponsibly” and said he had resigned, when he could have also asked “why only me?”

Before you rush to compare it all to Pontius Pilate washing his hands off the matter, remember it was not Pilate but the Jews who  crucified Jesus, whereas here it was Riyaz Khaiyum himself who gave Bainivalu “the boot” rather than taking any responsibility himself.

But more important than futile biblical comparisons, the Fiji public needs to ask why the DPP’s prosecution of the five entities associated with The Fiji Times case was so different when it came to those higher up.

The book is thrown at The Fiji Times
Every Fiji citizen with common sense understands that the language proficiency requirements of vernacular papers means that in practice, it is the vernacular editor who makes the day to day decisions on the content of each issue before it goes to print, just as the FBC CEO alleged for his program producer, Bainivalu, before it went to air.

In practice, neither the English edition editor, nor the publisher nor the owners of the parent publishing company can be reasonably expected to have direct daily roles in the vetting of content in the vernacular, as they cannot reasonably be expected to know the vernacular language enough, just as I doubt if FBC CEO (Riyaz Khaiyum) has any in-depth knowledge of the Fijian vernacular, enough to vet its sophisticated content.

Nevertheless, in The Fiji Times case, the DPP chose to prosecute not only the article author (Waqabaca) and the Nai Lalakai editor (Ravula) but also the English medium editor (Fred Wesley), the English-speaking publisher (Hank Arts) and the (English-speaking) Gujarati owners of The Fiji Times Limited.

Whether the English-speaking publisher Hank Arts and Fiji Times editor Fred Wesley can be held responsible for allegedly racist content in the vernacular newspaper they do not vet in practice, will be decided by the presiding Sri Lankan judge, even if cynics note that it will be under the constitution and media decrees that have been imposed on Fiji without the approval of any Parliament (before any generalisations are made about Sri Lankan judges, note that at least one Sri Lankan judge – in the Soko case- has gone against the political tide).

Note that there was no explicit call for violence in the Nai Lalakai/Fiji Times case either, a fact deemed by Ashwin Raj to be pertinent in not charging FBC’s producer/presenter of Wasea Bhasha.

But the public can legitimately ask, and indeed, if they want a free media in Fiji, it is their deep social responsibility to ask: are there different prosecuting standards for The Fiji Times CEO and for the FBC CEO?

Is the more severe and protracted treatment of The Fiji Times by the DPP’s Office intended to intimidate them further than has already occurred?

The public (and researchers into Fiji media) are reminded that Riyaz Khaiyum is the brother of the Attorney General (Aiyaz Khaiyum) and he not only became the CEO of FBC in “unusual” circumstances after the 2006 military coup, but his editorial policies have arguably favored the Bainimarama Government, while receiving preferential financial assistance from Government, assistance denied to their primary television competitor (Fiji One) or the private radio communication companies like Communications Fiji Limited.

The peculiar roles of Pryde, Raj and Riyaz
Historians of contemporary Fiji will one day put under the microscope all the many individuals (such as Christopher Pryde, Ashwin Raj and Riyaz Khaiyum) who have kept the Bainimarama regime ticking over.

Christopher Pryde appeared in Fiji soon after the 2006 coup and quickly assumed prominent positions in the military state’s apparatus, despite the military government being declared illegal by the 2009 Fiji Court of Appeal, a judgment never reversed.

Six years ago, Ashwin Raj was relatively unemployed or underemployed at the University of the South Pacific until two economics professors (no prizes for guessing who) prevailed upon the USP Vice Chancellor to offer him more substantive work, which he eventually obtained under a belligerent and aspiring Deputy VC of USP managing USP’s STAR project (now apparently gone into a Black Hole).

It was not long before the Bainimarama government discovered that Raj’s gift of the gab requiring the public to futilely buy dictionaries, would be a great asset as Chairman of MIDA.  Indeed, media censorship, intimidation and media funding biases flourished under Ashwin Raj’s benign gaze, while he pounced on any allegedly anti-government statements, such as the so-called “kerosene and water” comment by Ratu Timoci Vesikula at a village meeting.

Then Ashwin Raj was also appointed as the Chairman of the Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Commission, apparently or conveniently choosing not to recognise the many possible conflicts of interest in the two roles (“power corrupts absolutely”?).

The public might note (if they care) that the websites of both MIDA and the Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Commission are virtually empty of serious content, probably an accurate reflection of the extent to which Ashwin Raj is fulfilling his responsibilities to the wider Fiji society (although no doubt pleasing the Bainimarama government).

Raj has made no public statement about the curtailment of the basic human right of Hank Arts to travel abroad for two weeks for an important family occasion — the marriage of his stepdaughter — despite his giving more than ample sureties.

Riyaz Khaiyum was once a good journalist and we oldies will remember his penetrating and humorous interview of Prime Minister Rabuka while both were jogging on the Suva Point sea front after the 1987 coup.

One of the sad outcomes of all of Fiji’s military coups is that the smears generated by the coup leaders inevitably sticks to even the well-intentioned citizens who choose to support illegal governments, their laws and their unfair prosecutions (no doubt personal benefits also help).

History may be harsh on coup supporters and accomplices who think that a few “good things” done by the coup makers justify the coups, and their own behavior.  But that is no comfort to those who continue to suffer the ill effects of coups and even more into the future when the huge increase in public debt has to be paid.

Especially when Fiji history proves that such individuals will merely brush off the dirt before they depart, scot-free and with their ill-gotten gains, to their eventual peaceful permanent abodes abroad, which follow rules of law and social behavior that they so readily helped to trash in Fiji.

An even bigger tragedy for indigenous Fijians and their future, is that those that remain in Fiji will be forgiven in “true Fijian tradition” and welcomed back into the fold, without ever fully and honestly revealing,  atoning or being punished for their sins.

While the carrots have always been there for those who have supported coups, there have been no sticks to discourage future coup makers.

The incarceration of George Speight is merely a reminder to sleeping historians to explain why that one jailed sparrow does not represent the caging of summer.

Academic and media commentator Professor Wadan Narsey blogs at Narsey on Fiji – Fighting Censorship and this article is republished here from his blog with permission.