Journalists in Papua New Guinea are likely to face legal threats as powerful individuals and companies use court actions to silence public interest reporting, warns Media Council of PNG president Neville Choi.

As co-chair of the second Community Coalition Against Corruption (CCAC) National Meeting, he said lawfare was likely because Parliament had passed no laws to protect reporters and individuals from such tactics.

Choi said journalists were being left unprotected against Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation (SLAPPs) — legal actions used by powerful individuals or corporations to silence criticism and reporting.

“In Papua New Guinea right now, we don’t have any law to stop SLAPPs,” Choi said.

“Big corporations or organisations with more money can use lawsuits to silence people, civil society and the media. That’s the reality.”

SLAPPs are lawsuits filed not to win on merit, but to drain resources, silence critics, and stop public debate.

In some other countries, anti-SLAPP laws exist to protect journalists and whistleblowers. But in PNG, no such legal shield exists.

Legal pressure for speaking out
“We’ve seen it happen,” Choi added, referring to ACTNOW PNG’s Eddie Tanago, a civil society advocate who has faced legal pressure for speaking out.

“He’s experienced it. And we know it can happen to journalists too.”

Despite increasing threats, journalists do not have access to legal defence funds or institutional protection.

Choi confirmed that there was no system in place to defend reporters who were hit with defamation lawsuits or other forms of legal retaliation.

“Our advice to journalists is simple. Do your job well. The truth is the only protection we have,” he said.

“If you stick to facts, follow professional ethics and report responsibly, you reduce your risk. But if you make a mistake, you leave yourself open to lawsuits.”

The Media Council, in partnership with Transparency International under the CCAC, are discussing the idea of drafting an anti-SLAPP law but no formal proposal has been put forward yet.

Republished from the PNG Post-Courier with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

In the year marking 40 years since the bombing of the Rainbow Warrior by French secret agents and 71 years since the most powerful nuclear weapons tested by the United States, Greenpeace is calling on Washington to comply with demands by the Marshall Islands for nuclear justice.

“The Marshall Islands bears the deepest scars of a dark legacy — nuclear contamination, forced displacement, and premeditated human experimentation at the hands of the US government,” said Greenpeace spokesperson Shiva Gounden.

To mark the Marshall Islands’ Remembrance Day today, the Greenpeace flagship Rainbow Warrior is flying the republic’s flag at halfmast in solidarity with those who lost their lives and are suffering ongoing trauma as a result of US nuclear weapons testing in the Pacific.

On 1 March 1954, the Castle Bravo nuclear bomb was detonated on Bikini Atoll with a blast 1000 times more powerful than the Hiroshima bomb.

On Rongelap Atoll, 150 km away, radioactive fallout rained onto the inhabited island, with children mistaking it as snow.

The Rainbow Warrior is sailing to the Marshall Islands where a mission led by Greenpeace will conduct independent scientific research across the country, the results of which will eventually be given to the National Nuclear Commission to support the Marshall Islands government’s ongoing legal proceedings with the US and at the UN.

The voyage also marks 40 years since Greenpeace’s original Rainbow Warrior evacuated the people of Rongelap after toxic nuclear fallout rendered their ancestral land uninhabitable.

Still enduring fallout
Marshall Islands communities still endure the physical, economic, and cultural fallout of the nuclear tests — compensation from the US has fallen far short of expectations of the islanders who are yet to receive an apology.

And the accelerating impacts of the climate crisis threaten further displacement of communities.

Former Marshall Islands Foreign Minister Tony deBrum’s “nuclear justice” speech as Right Livelihood Award Winner in 2009. Video: Voices Rising

“To this day, Marshall Islanders continue to grapple with this injustice while standing on the frontlines of the climate crisis — facing yet another wave of displacement and devastation for a catastrophe they did not create,” Gounden said.

“But the Marshallese people and their government are not just survivors — they are warriors for justice, among the most powerful voices demanding bold action, accountability, and reparations on the global stage.

“Those who have inflicted unimaginable harm on the Marshallese must be held to account and made to pay for the devastation they caused.

“Greenpeace stands unwaveringly beside Marshallese communities in their fight for justice. Jimwe im Maron.”

Ariana Tibon Kilma, chair of the Marshall Islands National Nuclear Commission, said that the immediate effects of the Bravo bomb on March 1 were “harrowing”.

“Hours after exposure, many people fell ill — skin peeling off, burning sensation in their eyes, their stomachs were churning in pain. Mothers watched as their children’s hair fell to the ground and blisters devoured their bodies overnight,” she said.

“Without their consent, the United States government enrolled them as ‘test subjects’ in a top secret medical study on the effects of radiation on human beings — a study that continued for 40 years.

“Today on Remembrance Day the trauma of Bravo continues for the remaining survivors and their descendents — this is a legacy not only of suffering, loss, and frustration, but also of strength, unity, and unwavering commitment to justice, truth and accountability.”

The new Rainbow Warrior will arrive in the Marshall Islands early this month.

Alongside the government of the Marshall Islands, Greenpeace will lead an independent scientific mission into the ongoing impacts of the US weapons testing programme.

Travelling across the country, Greenpeace will reaffirm its solidarity with the Marshallese people — now facing further harm and displacement from the climate crisis, and the emerging threat of deep sea mining in the Pacific.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

COMMENTARY: By Bernard Keane

Two moments stand out so far from the Federal Court hearings relating to Antoinette Lattouf’s sacking by the ABC, insofar as they demonstrate how power works in Australia — and especially in Australia’s media.

The first is how the ABC’s senior management abandoned due process in the face of a sustained lobbying effort by a pro-Israel group to have Lattouf taken off air, under the confected basis she was “antisemitic”.

Managing director David Anderson admitted in court that there was a “step missing” in the process that led to her sacking — in particular, a failure to consult with the ABC’s HR area, and a failure to discuss the attacks on Lattouf with Lattouf herself, before kicking her out.

To this, it might be added, was acting editorial director Simon Melkman’s advice to management that Lattouf had not breached any editorial policies.

Anderson bizarrely singled out Lattouf’s authorship, alongside Cameron Wilson, of a Crikey article questioning the narrative that pro-Palestinian protesters had chanted “gas the Jews”, as basis for his concerns about her, only for one of his executives to point out the article was “balanced and journalistically sound“.

That is, by the ABC’s own admission, there was no basis to sack Lattouf and the sacking was conducted improperly. And yet, here we are, with the ABC tying itself in absurd knots — no such race as Lebanese, indeed — spending millions defending its inappropriate actions in response to a lobbying campaign.

The second moment that stands out is a decision by the court early in the trial to protect the identities of those calling for Lattouf’s sacking.

Abandoned due process
The campaign that the group rolled out prompted the ABC chair and managing director to immediately react — and the ABC to abandon due process and procedural fairness. Yet the court protects their identities.

The reasoning — that the identities behind the complaints should be protected for their safety — may or may not be based on reasonable fears, but it’s the second time that institutions have worked to protect people who planned to undermine the careers of people — specifically, women — who have dared to criticise Israel.

The first was when some members — a minority — of a WhatsApp group supposedly composed of pro-Israel “creatives” discussed how to wreck the careers of, inter alia, Clementine Ford and Lauren Dubois for their criticism of Israel.

The publishing of the identities of this group was held by both the media and the political class to be an outrageous, antisemitic act of “doxxing”, and the federal government rushed through laws to make such publications illegal.

No mention of making the act of trying to destroy people’s careers because they hold different political views — or, cancel culture, as the right likes to call it — illegal.

Whether it’s courts, politicians or the media, it seems that the dice are always loaded in favour of those wanting to crush criticism of Israel, while its victims are left to fend for themselves.

Human rights lawyer and fighter against antisemitism Sarah Schwartz has been repeatedly threatened with (entirely vexatious) lawsuits by Israel supporters for her criticism of Israel, and her discussion of the exploitation of Australian Jews by Peter Dutton.

Opinion | Australian democracy and the rule of law is being damaged by the media’s willingness to abandon due process and attack those who criticise Israel, writes @bernardkeane.

Read it here: https://t.co/gpNuppn31l pic.twitter.com/AyxKdyVMG4

— Crikey (@crikey_news) February 11, 2025

Targeted by another News Corp smear campaign
She’s been targeted by yet another News Corp smear campaign, based on nothing more than a wilfully misinterpreted slide. She has no government or court rushing to protect her.

Meanwhile, Peter Lalor, one of Australia’s finest sports journalists (and I write as someone who can’t abide most sports journalism) lost his job with SEN because he, too, dared to criticise Israel and call out the Palestinian genocide. No-one’s rushing to his aide, either.

No powerful institutions are weighing in to safeguard his privacy, or protect him from the consequences of his opinions.

The individual cases add up to a pattern: Australian institutions, and especially its major media institutions, will punish you for criticising Israel.

Pro-Israel groups will demand you be sacked, they will call for your career to be destroyed. Those groups will be protected.

Media companies will ride roughshod over basic rights and due process to comply with their demands. You will be smeared and publicly vilified on completely spurious bases. Politicians will join in, as Jason Clare did with the campaign against Schwartz and as Chris Minns is doing in NSW, imposing hate speech laws that even Christian groups think are a bad idea.

Australian journalist Antoinette Lattouf was sacked from her job at ABC because she shared an Instagram post from @hrw in which the NGS accused Israel of using starvation as a weapon of war. She is now taking the broadcaster to court. pic.twitter.com/jRmQW2AAl3

— Saul Staniforth (@SaulStaniforth) February 11, 2025

Damaging the fabric of democracy
This is how the campaign to legitimise the Palestinian genocide and destroy critics of the Netanyahu government has damaged the fabric of Australia’s democracy and the rule of law.

The basic rights and protections that Australians should have under a legal system devoted to preventing discrimination can be stripped away in a moment, while those engaged in destroying people’s careers and livelihoods are protected.

Ill-advised laws are rushed in to stifle freedom of speech. Australian Jews are stereotyped as a politically convenient monolith aligned with the Israeli government.

The experience of Palestinians themselves, and of Arab communities in Australia, is minimised and erased. And the media are the worst perpetrators of all.

Bernard Keane is Crikey’s politics editor. Before that he was Crikey’s Canberra press gallery correspondent, covering politics, national security and economics. First published by Crikey.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Papua New Guinea’s civic space has been rated as “obstructed” by the Civicus Monitor and the country has been criticised for pushing forward with a controversial media law in spite of strong opposition.

Among concerns previously documented by the civil rights watchdog are harassment and threats against human rights defenders, particularly those working on land and environmental rights, use of the cybercrime law to criminalise online expression, intimidation and restrictions against journalists, and excessive force during protests.

In recent months, the authorities have used the cybercrime law to target a human rights defender for raising questions online on forest enforcement, while a journalist and gender-based violence survivor is also facing charges under the law, said the Civicus Monitor in its latest report.

The court halted a logging company’s lawsuit against a civil society group while the government is pushing forward with the controversial National Media Development law.

Human rights defender charged under cybercrime law
On 9 December 2024, human rights defender and ACT NOW! campaign manager Eddie Tanago was arrested and charged by police under section 21(2) of the Cybercrime Act 2016 for allegedly publishing defamatory remarks on social media about the managing director of the PNG Forest Authority.

Tanago was taken to the Boroko Police Station Holding cell and released on bail the same afternoon. If convicted he could face a maximum sentence of 15 years’ imprisonment.

ACT NOW is a prominent human rights organisation seeking to halt illegal logging and related human rights violations in Papua New Guinea (PNG).

According to reports, ACT NOW had reshared a Facebook post from a radio station advertising an interview with PNG Forest Authority (PNGFA) staff members, which included a photo of the managing director.

The repost included a comment raising questions about PNGFA forest enforcement.

Following Tanago’s arrest, ACT NOW said: “it believes that the arrest and charging of Tanago is a massive overreach and is a blatant and unwarranted attempt to intimidate and silence public debate on a critical issue of national and international importance.”

It added that “there was nothing defamatory in the social media post it shared and there is nothing remotely criminal in republishing a poster which includes the image of a public figure which can be found all over the internet.”

On 24 January 2025, when Tanago appeared at the Waigani Committal Court, he was instead charged under section 15, subparagraph (b) of the Cybercrime Act for “identity theft”. The next hearing has been scheduled for February 25.

The 2016 Cybercrime Act has been used to silence criticism and creates a chilling effect, said Civicus Monitor.

The law has been criticised by the opposition, journalists and activists for its impact on freedom of expression and political discourse.

JOURNO ARRAIGNED ON CYBER HARASSMENT
Journalist Hennah Joku appeared before Magistrate Paul Nii at the Waigani Committal Court on charges of cyber defamation following a Facebook post made on 4th September 2024.
Read more:https://t.co/LEIDEcTZv6#EMTVNews #EMTVOnline pic.twitter.com/zHqm353Cst

— EMTV (@EMTVOnline) December 5, 2024

Journalist and gender activist charged with defamation
Journalist and gender activist Hennah Joku was detained and charged under the Cybercrime Act on 23 November 2024, following defamation complaints filed by her former partner Robert Agen.

Joku was charged with two counts of breaching the Cybercrimes Act 2016 and detained in Boroko Prison. She was freed on the same day after bail was posted.

Joku, a survivor of a 2018 assault by Agen, had documented and shared her six-year journey through the PNG justice system, which had resulted in his conviction and jailing in 2023.

On 2 September 2024, the PNG Supreme Court overturned two of three criminal convictions, and Agen was released from prison.

On 4 and 15 September 2024, Joku shared her reactions with more than 9000 followers on her Meta social media account. Those two posts, one of which featured the injuries suffered from her 2018 assault, now form the basis for the current defamation charges against her.

Section 21(2) of the Cybercrimes Act 2016, which has an electronic defamation clause, carries a maximum penalty of up to 25 years’ imprisonment or a fine of up to one million kina (NZ$442,000).

The Pacific Freedom Forum (PFF) expressed “grave concerns” over the charges, saying: “We encourage the government and judiciary to review the use of defamation legislation to silence and gag the universal right to freedom of speech.

“Citizens must be informed. They must be protected.”

Court stays logging company lawsuit against civil society group
In January 2025, an injunction issued against community advocacy group ACT NOW! to prevent publication of reports on illegal logging has been stayed by the National Court.

In July 2024, two Malaysian owned logging companies obtained an order from the District Court in Vanimo preventing ACT NOW! from issuing publications about their activities and from contacting their clients and service providers.

That order has now been effectively lifted after the National Court agreed to stay the whole District court proceedings while it considers an application from ACT NOW! to have the case permanently stayed and transferred to the National Court.

ACT NOW! said the action by Global Elite Limited and Wewak Agriculture Development Limited, which are part of the Giant Kingdom group, is an example of Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation (SLAPP).

“SLAPPs are illegitimate and abusive lawsuits designed to intimidate, harass and silence legitimate criticism and close down public scrutiny of the logging industry,” said Civicus Monitor.

SLAPP lawsuits have been outlawed in many countries and lawyers involved in supporting them can be sanctioned, but those protections do not yet exist in PNG.

The District Court action is not the first time the Malaysian-owned Giant Kingdom group has tried to use the legal system in an attempt to silence ACT NOW!

In March 2024, the court rejected a similar SLAPP style application by the Global Elite for an injunction against ACT NOW! As a result, the company discontinued its legal action and the court ordered it to pay ACT NOW!’s legal costs.

Government pushes forward with controversial media legislation
The government is reportedly ready to pass legislation to regulate its media, which journalism advocates have said could have serious implications for democracy and freedom of speech in the country.

National Broadcasting Corporation (NBC) of PNG reported in January 2025 that the policy has received the “green light” from cabinet to be presented in Parliament.

The state broadcaster reported that Communications Minister Timothy Masiu said: “This policy will address the ongoing concerns about sensationalism, ethical standards, and the portrayal of violence in the media.”

In July 2024, it was reported that the proposed media policy was now in its fifth draft but it is unclear if this version has been updated.

As previously documented, journalists have raised concerns that the media development policy could lead to more government control over the country’s relatively free media.

The bill includes sections that give the government the “power to investigate complaints against media outlets, issue guidelines for ethical reporting, and enforce sanctions or penalties for violations of professional standards”.

There are also concerns that the law will punish journalists who create content that is against the country’s development objectives.

Organisations such as Transparency International PNG, Media Council of PNG, Pacific Freedom Forum, and Pacific Media Watch/Asia Pacific Media Network among others, have asked for the policy to be dropped.

The press freedom ranking for PNG dropped from 59th place to 91st in the most recent index published by Reporters without Borders (RSF) in May 2024.

Civicus Monitor.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Among his first official acts on returning to the White House, President Donald Trump issued an executive order “restoring freedom of speech and ending federal censorship”.

Implicit in this vaguely written document: the United States is done fighting mis- and disinformation online, reports the Paris-based global media watchdog Reporters Without Borders (RSF).

Meanwhile, far from living up to the letter or spirit of his own order, Trump is fighting battles against the American news media on multiple fronts and has pardoned at least 13 individuals convicted or charged for attacking journalists in the 6 January 2021 insurrection.

An RSF statement strongly refutes Trump’s “distorted vision of free speech, which is inherently detrimental to press freedom”.

Trump has long been one of social media’s most prevalent spreaders of false information, and his executive order, “Restoring Freedom of Speech and Ending Federal Censorship,” is the latest in a series of victories for the propagators of disinformation online.

Bowing to pressure from Trump, Mark Zuckerberg, whose Meta platforms are already hostile to journalism, did away with fact-checking on Facebook, which the tech mogul falsely equated to censorship while throwing fact-checking journalists under the bus.

Trump ally Elon Musk also dismantled the meagre trust and safety safeguards in place when he took over Twitter and proceeded to arbitrarily ban journalists who were critical of him from the site.

‘Free speech’ isn’t ‘free of facts’
“Free speech doesn’t mean public discourse has to be free of facts. Donald Trump and his Big Tech cronies like Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg are dismantling what few guardrails the internet had to protect the integrity of information,” said RSF’s USA executive director Clayton Weimers.

“We cannot ignore the irony of Trump appointing himself the chief crusader for ‘free speech’ while he continues to personally attack press freedom — a pillar of the First Amendment — and has vowed to weaponise the federal government against expression he doesn’t like.

“If Trump means what he says in his own executive order, he could start by dropping his lawsuits against news organisations.”

Trump recently settled a lawsuit out of court with ABC News parent company Disney, but is still suing the Des Moines Register and its parent company Gannett for publishing a poll unfavourable to his campaign, and the Pulitzer Center board for awarding coverage of his 2016 campaign’s alleged ties with Russia.

Trump should immediately drop both lawsuits and refrain from launching others while in office.

After a campaign where he attacked the press on a daily basis, Trump has continued to berate the media and dismissed its legitimacy to critique him.

During a press conference the day after he took office, Trump reproached NBC reporter Peter Alexander for questions about Trump’s blanket pardons of the January 6th riot participants, saying, “Just look at the numbers on the election.

“We won this election in a landslide, because the American public is tired of people like you that are just one-sided, horrible people, in terms of crime.”

An incoherent press freedom policy
The executive order also flies in the face of his violent rhetoric against journalists.

The order asserts that during the Biden administration, “the Federal government infringed on the constitutionally protected speech rights of American citizens across the United States in a manner that advanced the government’s preferred narrative about significant matters of public debate.”

It goes on to state, “It is the policy of the United States to ensure that no Federal Government officer, employee, or agent engages in or facilitates any conduct that would unconstitutionally abridge the free speech of any American citizen.”

This stated policy, laudable in a vacuum, even if made redundant by the First Amendment, is rendered meaningless by Trump’s explicit threats to weaponise the government against the media, which have recently included threats to revoke broadcast licenses in political retaliation, investigate news organizations that criticise him, and jail journalists who refuse to expose confidential sources.

Instead, the policy appears designed to amplify disinformation, which benefits a President of the United States who has proven willing to spread disinformation that furthered his political interests on matters small and large.

“If Trump is serious about his stated commitment to free speech, RSF suggests he begin by ensuring his own actions serve to protect the free press, rather than censoring or punishing media outlets,” the watchdog said.

“The United States has seen a steady decline in its press freedom ranking in RSF’s World Press Freedom Index over the past decade to a current ranking of 55th out of 180 countries, with presidents from both parties presiding over this backslide.

“While Trump is not entirely responsible for the present situation, his frequent attacks on the news media have no doubt contributed to the decline in trust in the media, which has been driven partly by partisan attitudes towards journalism.

“Trump’s violent rhetoric can also contribute to real-life violence — assaults on journalists nearly doubled in 2024, when his campaign was at its apex, compared to 2023.”

Pacific Media Watch collaborates with RSF.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

The Palau Media Council has condemned a political lawsuit against the publisher of the Island Times as an “assault on press freedom” with the Pacific country facing an election on Tuesday.

In a statement yesterday, the council added that the lawsuit, filed by Surangel and Sons Co. against Times publisher Leilani Reklai over her newspaper’s coverage of tax-related documents that surfaced on social media, was an attempt to undermine the accountability that was vital to democracy.

The statement also said the lawsuit raised “critical concerns about citizens’ access to information and freedom of the press.

Palau recently topped the inaugural Pacific Media Freedom Index for press freedom.

“This lawsuit, combined with government’s statements endorsing that Island Times reported mis-information on its coverage of the tax related document and the decision to ban Island Times from Surangel and Sons [distribution] outlets, raises critical concerns about citizens’ access to information and the freedom of the press — both of which are cornerstones of a democratic society,” the statement said.

“The council sees this legal action as an assault on press freedom and an attempt to undermine the accountability that is vital to democracy.”

The statement said that Reklai, one of Palau’s senior journalists, was being targeted simply for reporting on documents that were already in the public domain.

“She did not originate the information but responsibly conveyed what these documents suggested, raising questions about the current administration’s narrative on corporate tax contributions,” the council said.

‘Journalistic duty’
“Reporting on such information is a journalistic duty to ensure transparency in tax policies and government incentives impacting the private sector.

“The Island Times, by publishing these documents, has provided a platform for clarifying public understanding of the new PGST tax law’s impact on major corporations and the actual tax contributions of Surangel and Sons.

“These issues are clearly within the public’s right to know, and the council emphasises that media plays a crucial role in reporting such findings and promoting informed debate.

The council said it stood in solidarity with Reklai and all journalists who strived to find and uphold the truth.

“In a healthy democracy, a free and open press is essential for informed citizens and responsible governance.”

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Palau’s largest newspaper is being sued for defamation by the company of President Surangel Whipps Jr’s father, just days ahead of general elections in the Pacific nation.

Surangel and Sons alleges “negligence and defamation” by the Island Times and its editor Leilani Reklai for an article published on Tuesday with “false and unsubstantiated allegations,” owner Surangel Whipps Sr said in a press release on Thursday.

Reklai has rejected the company’s allegations and said the “lawsuit is trying to control how media here in Palau tells a story”, a news article about the case in the Island Times reported on Friday.

“I feel like we are being intimidated, we are being forced to speak a certain narrative rather than present diverse community perspectives,” said Reklai, who is also a stringer for BenarNews.

The Micronesian nation of 17,000 people — 650 km north of Papua New Guinea — goes to the polls on November 5. Whipps Jr’s rival is his brother-in-law Tommy Remengesau Jr, who was president from 2001 to 2009 and 2013 to 2021.

The controversy comes after Palau was top of the inaugural 2023 Pacific Media Freedom Index of 14 island countries that highlighted the region’s media facing significant political and economic pressures, bribes and corruption, as well as self-censorship.

Island Times reported on Friday the suit is seeking compensation and punitive damages and that the company asserts the “monetary awards should be substantial enough to prevent similar conduct from the newspaper and Reklai in future”.

Surangel and Sons financial details — leaked from the country’s tax office — were posted on social media last weekend, prompting heated online debate over how much it paid.

A new corporate and goods and services tax system introduced by Whipps Jr’s government is currently being rolled out in Palau and its merits have been a focus of election campaigning.

The company in a statement said its “privacy rights had been violated,” the tax details were obtained illegally, posted online without consent, and some of the figures had been altered.

Motivation ‘confusing voters’
“The motivation behind the circulation of this document is clearly for misinformation and disinformation to confuse voters. In the end Surangel and Sons is not running for office. Unfortunately, it has been victimised by this smear campaign,” the company posted on social media.

Island Times in a 225-word, front-page story headlined “Surangel & Sons condemns tax report leak as privacy violation” reported the company’s statement on Tuesday. It also quoted financial details from the leaked documents and accompanying commentary.

Whipps Jr. in a press conference on Wednesday accused the Island Times of publishing disinformation.

“Island Times continues to print political propaganda, it’s not accurate,” Whipps Jr said, calling for a correction to be published.

The lawsuit against the paper and its editor was served the next day.

Whipps Jr’s spokesperson told BenarNews any questions related to the lawsuit should be directed to the parties involved.

Surangel and Sons was founded in 1980 by Whipps Sr, who also served as Palau’s president briefly in 2005 and for two years from 2007.

Business ‘offers everything’
The privately-owned business “offers everything from housing design and automotive repair to equipment rentals, groceries, and scuba gear” through its import, sales, construction and travel arms, the company’s website says.

Previously as CEO, Whipps Jr transformed the company from a family store to one of Palau’s largest and most diversified businesses, employing more than 700 people.

His LinkedIn profile states he finished as CEO in January 2021, after 28 years in the position and in the month he became president. His spokesperson did not respond to questions from BenarNews about if he still retains any direct financial or other links to the company.

Surangel and Sons said the revelation of sensitive business information threatens their competitive advantage and puts jobs at risk.

Palau’s Minister of Finance Kaleb Udui Jr told the president’s press conference on Wednesday an investigation was underway, a special prosecutor would be appointed and apologized for the leak to the company.

“I would hope the media would make extra effort to help educate the public and discourage misinformation and breaches of privacy of the tax office and any other government office,” Udui said, confirming the tax documents had been altered before being posted on social media.

He said tax office staff have previously been warned about leaks and ensuring data confidentiality, as breaches negatively impact the confidence of foreign investors in Palau.

Explanation rather than leak
Whipps Jr added that the newspaper should have explained the tax system instead of reporting the leaked information.

He also accused Island Times of failure to disclose a paid advertisement in this week’s edition of the paper for his political opponent.

“I’m disappointed in the Island Times, because there was an article that was not an article, a paid advertisement,” Whipps Jr said about a colourful blue and yellow election campaign graphic.

Island Times told BenarNews it was not usual practice to put “Paid Advertisement” on advertisements but it would review its policy for political campaign material.

Reklai fears the lawsuit could have serious consequences for the media in Palau and bankrupt Island Times, the paper reported.

“If I don’t stand up to this, it sends a signal to all journalists that they risk facing claims for damages for powerful companies and government officials while carrying out their work,” she said.

Palau has two newspapers and four radio stations and enshrined in its constitution are protections for journalists, including a guarantee they cannot be jailed for refusing to disclose sources.

Surangel and Sons said they would no longer sell Island Times through their outlets.

Copyright ©2015-2024, BenarNews. Republished with the permission of BenarNews.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Building upon recent episodes of A View from Afar, Political Scientist Paul G Buchanan and journalist Selwyn Manning discuss The Politics of Desperation. This episode flows on from our discussions about long transitions and the moment of friction.

As the old status quo begins to crumble (under the weight of fraction), political leaders and elites invested in it get increasingly desperate, leading to more dangerous decisions, more acute moments, and, increased chances of mistake, miscalculation and unanticipated backlash.

The Politics of Desperation accentuates an ongoing downward spiral. And, the Politics of Desperation takes form in differing degrees. For some, the risk of losing is merely a dent in the leader’s ego, reputation, and an awakening that voters have moved on from their style of politics.

But for others, a loss will prove to be devastating, for example; should Donald Trump lose his bid to regain the United States presidency, he will face sentencing as a felon and perhaps even face jail time. For Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu, a future loss or a collapse of his right-wing coalition would likely see him facing domestic charges and possibly charges laid by the International Criminal Court for his role in the disproportionate use of military might in Israel’s war on Gaza.

So, Paul and Selwyn discuss the examples of the Politics of Desperation from around the world and assess the risks as the world rests on the cusp of an unknown future.

INTERACTION WHILE LIVE:

Paul and Selwyn encourage their live audience to interact while they are live with questions and comments.

To interact during the live recording of this podcast, go to Youtube.com/c/EveningReport/

Remember to subscribe to the channel.

For the on-demand audience, you can also keep the conversation going on this debate by clicking on one of the social media channels below:

• Youtube.com/c/EveningReport/
• Facebook.com/selwyn.manning
• Twitter.com/Selwyn_Manning

RECOGNITION: The MIL Network’s podcast A View from Afar was Nominated as a Top Defence Security Podcast by Threat.Technology – a London-based cyber security news publication. Threat.Technology placed A View from Afar at 9th in its 20 Best Defence Security Podcasts of 2021 category.

You can follow A View from Afar via our affiliate syndicators.

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

About 4500 Bougainvillean residents now back a lawsuit against mining giant Rio Tinto.

This is an additional 1500 people from the autonomous Papua New Guinea region joining the action since it was filed in May this year.

Bougainville President Ishmael Toroama said the lawsuit was disappointing and was pursued by those people acting against Bougainville’s interests.

The government was not backing it in any way, shape or form, he said.

The claimants are seeking billions of dollars in compensation from Rio Tinto which operated the Panguna copper and gold mine in the 1970s and 1980s before it was forced to shut by civil war.

The mine was at the heart of that war which brought death and devastation to Bougainville over a 10-year period until 1997.

They say Rio Tinto, which was the majority shareholder in Bougainville Copper Ltd (BCL) at the time, is responsible for the large scale environmental and social harm that resulted from what was one of the biggest mines in the world.

A former senior Bougainville political leader, Martin Miriori, who is the lead claimant of the class action, said the “large increase in claimants demonstrates the strength of feeling among local people that Rio Tinto and BCL must make amends for decades of environmental devastation”.

He said “this issue will not go away, as the legal action has attracted strong support, and reminded the world of the destruction caused by the mine operator’s reckless actions.”

A first court hearing is set for Port Moresby on 10 October 2024.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Foreign Minister Winston Peters has “hung . . . out to dry” Fiji’s suspended New Zealand Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) who wrote to him seeking assistance, a former Fiji government advisor-cum-critic says.

On July 11, Christopher Pryde, who was stood down for alleged misconduct in April 2023, wrote to Peters seeking New Zealand government intervention after his salary was “unilaterally” cut off by the Fiji government midway into his seven-year employment contract.

“The sudden cessation of my salary at the eleventh hour whilst I am in the middle of instructing legal counsel in Fiji to defend myself against charges brought by the Fijian government is a denial of natural justice that has left me with little choice but to seek your assistance,” Pryde said in a five-page letter to the minister.

A spokesperson from Peters’ office told RNZ Pacific today: “This is a matter between Mr Pryde and the government of Fiji. It is not a matter for the minister to comment on.”

However, according to the Fiji Sun, Peters — in an exclusive interview with the newspaper — said that “he was not happy” with the New Zealander’s “approach to seek assistance from him”.

“He (Pryde) wrote to everybody and sent me a copy,” he was quoted as saying in a frontpage news story with the headline ‘Winston slams Pryde’s email action for help’.

“He sent me a copy? He wrote me a letter and sent it to everyone else at the same time!. What do you think about somebody that wrote to you — asking for help and then sent it to everyone else at the same time? What would you think?,” the newspaper reported.

‘Bereft of principle’
The Deputy Prime Minsiter’s comments reported in the Fijian daily have been labelled by a former Fiji government communications advisor and Grubsheet blog publisher, Graham Davis, as “highhanded and bereft of principle”.

“Winston Peters has clearly hung Christopher Pryde out to dry,” Davis said.

“His dismissive attitude to suspended DPP Pryde now being unable to defend himself against a false charge of misbehaviour because his salary has been severed is . . . highhanded and bereft of principle.

“And it sends an ominous message to every New Zealander working in the Pacific or contemplating doing so that if they fall foul of their host governments, Winston [Peters] will cut them loose. They are on their own.”

Fiji Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka told local media that Pryde was entitled to receive all salaries until he was removed from office.

The Kiwi lawyer was suspended 15 months ago after he allegedly “spent about 30 to 45 minutes conversing alone” with former Attorney-General Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum at a public event hosted by the Japanese Embassy in the capital Suva.

In April last year, Rabuka said people in high office needed to be “very aware of who is watching what we do”.

‘Fraternising’ with person under investigation
“For the DPP [Pryde] to be seen to be fraternising with high profile person under investigation would not be the right thing for the DPP to [have] done.”

Pryde, who has held the top prosecutor’s role since 2011, warned other New Zealand citizens who have taken up positions in Fiji’s criminal justice system “may potentially be adversely impacted if the Fijian government is permitted to ignore due process and the rule of law”.

“The NZ government provides substantial aid to Fiji in support of the rule of law which is being undermined,” he wrote to Peters.

The Fiji Law Society and the New Zealand Law Society (NZLS) have expressed concerns on the issue.

NZLS president Frazer Barton has encouraged “respect for and compliance . .. of the rule of law”.

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

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

A Palestinian advocate has appealed to the New Zealand government to call for a permanent ceasefire in Gaza and to back the South African genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ).

“A sovereign state like New Zealand that has historically stood for what is morally correct must not bend to foreign pressure, and must reject policies aligned with the United Kingdom of Israel and the United States of Israel which blindly endorse and support the apartheid regime,” said Billy Hania of the Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa (PSNA).

He was speaking at the pro-Palestinian rally and march in Auckland Tāmaki Makaurau yesterday as the Gaza death toll rose above 25,000 dead, mostly women and children.

Belgium is among the latest of 61 countries — and the first European nation — to support the genocide case and a growing number of other lawsuits are also being brought against Israel.

Chile and Mexico have asked the International Criminal Court (ICC) to investigate crimes against civilians in the war and Indonesia has filed a new lawsuit in the ICJ against Israel for its illegal occupation of Palestinian territories.

Swiss prosecutors have also confirmed that a “crimes against humanity” case has been filed against Israeli President Isaac Herzog during his visit to the World Economic Forum in Davos last week. No further details were given.

“The Zionist project is failing in Palestine — the apartheid entity with 75 years of colonial terror has achieved nothing for the Jewish people, oppressing and killing Palestinians through a violent settler colonial approach,” Hania said.

“Mass killing of Palestinians will achieve nothing for the Jewish people. Without respect for Palestinian rights and respect for life in Palestine, there will be no peace period.”

‘One holocaust not enough?’
Constrasting the shrinking support for Israel with massive citizen protests “in their millions” taking place around the world, Hania criticised Germany’s intervention in the genocide case supporting Tel Aviv while also planning to provide 10,000 tank munitions to “the apartheid regime with which to massacre Palestinians — as if one holocaust was not enough”.

“We are calling on the New Zealand government to support the South African ICJ case in addition to supporting the recent Chile-Mexico ICC war crimes initiative. This initiative is technically important with Israel being a signatory to the ICC,” Hania said.

He also thanked Indonesia for its legal initiative.

“More than 100 days of targeting Palestinian civilians and civilian infrastructure to exterminate Palestinian life is committing genocide, the crime of all crimes and with total impunity,” Hania said.

“More than 60,000 tons of explosives dropped over Gaza in 100 days equals three nuclear bombs, more than the infamous nuclear tragedy on Japan that led to its immediate surrender. It’s fundamentally different for Gaza as surrendering does not exist in Palestine vocabulary.”

He said the more than 100 Israel hostages would remain in Gaza until the “thousands of Palestinian hostages are freed”.

“The Gaza siege must end, West Bank Israeli settler extremist violence must end, there must be respect for worshippers and Muslim religious sites attacks by Israeli extremists is well documented and must end.”

24 massacres cited
Hania stressed that the current war did not start on October 7 with the deadly Hamas resistance movement attack on southern Israel as claimed by the Israeli government.

He cited a list of 24 massacres of Palestinians by Zionist militia that began at Haifa in 1937 and Jerusalem the same year, including the Nakba – “the Catastrophe” — in 1948 when 750,000 Palestinians were forced out of their homes and lands with the destruction of towns and villages.

Hania also referred to a recent New York Times article that warned Israel was in a strategic bind over its failed military policies, saying Israel’s objectives were “mutually incompatible”.

“Israel’s limited progress in dismantling Hamas has raised doubts within the military’s high command about the near-term feasibility of achieving the country’s principal wartime objectives: eradicating Hamas and also liberating the Israeli hostages still in Gaza,” wrote the authors Ronen Bergman and Patrick Kingsley.

Israel had established control over a smaller part of Gaza at this stage of the war than originally envisaged in battle plans from the start of the invasion, which were reviewed by The Times.

Citing Dr Andreas Krieg, a war analyst at King’s College London, from the article, Hania quoted:

“It’s not an environment where you can free hostages.

“It is an unwinnable war.

“Most of the time when you are in an unwinnable war, you realise that at some point — and you withdraw.

“And they didn’t.”

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Report by Radio New Zealand.

Algerian democracy activist Ahmed Zaoui, a New Zealand citizen, has been charged with subversion by police in his homeland.

Zaoui was arrested at gunpoint three weeks ago, after holding a political meeting at his home.

He had released a statement on behalf of the Islamic Salvation Front calling for peaceful political dialogue, amid the current economic and political crisis.

Zaoui’s New Zealand lawyer, Deborah Manning, said he was a former elected member of parliament in his own country and was being “arbitrarily detained for his political opinion”.

“We have learned in recent days that Mr Zaoui has been charged with subversion, under a new law in Algeria… and has been transferred to Koléa Prison. This prison is known for its overcrowding and harsh conditions,” she said.

“Over the weekend, I submitted a request to the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, requesting them to make an urgent appeal to the Algerian Authorities, on the basis that his detention is arbitrary (as it is for political reasons) and due to concerns for Mr Zaoui’s health.”

Zaoui was a diabetic, and his family – who were only allowed to see him for 15 minutes every two weeks – feared for his health, she said.

Recognised as a refugee by New Zealand 20 years ago, he entered Algeria on a New Zealand passport.

“Mr Zaoui returned to Algeria to be with family in recent years, as the political situation appeared to be settling,” Manning said.

“He was planning to return to New Zealand later this year and to live between Algeria and New Zealand.”

His arrest came amid a recent crackdown on political activists and journalists, including arrests and detentions.

“His arrest was not expected and has been a shock to all,” Manning said.

“Just days before Mr Zaoui’s arrest, the UN expert on the right to peaceful assembly and association made a statement at the end of a 10-day official visit to Algeria, calling on the government to allow peaceful assembly and association.”

The New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade was offering “advice and assistance”, Manning said.

“Mr Zaoui, and his family are grateful for the support they have received from New Zealand since his arrest.”

They wanted him to be released, so he could return to live in New Zealand with his family, she said.

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

Suva lawyer Richard Naidu is a free man after the Suva High Court ruled this week that no conviction be recorded against him.

High Court judge Justice Daniel Goundar ruled on Tuesday that the charge of contempt scandalising the court against Naidu be dismissed.

He said summons to set aside the judgment that had found Naidu guilty in November last year was by consent and was dismissed as he did not have jurisdiction.

Justice Gounder ordered the parties to bear their own costs.

While delivering his judgment, Justice Gounder said while mitigation and sentencing were pending, a new government had come into power and a new Attorney-General had been appointed.

He said that after the change of government [FijiFirst lost the general election last December], Justice Jude Nanayakkara, who had been previously presiding over the case, had resigned as a Fiji judge and left the jurisdiction without concluding proceedings.

Justice Gounder said the new Attorney-General, Siromi Turaga had taken a different position regarding the proceedings, which he had expressed in an affidavit filed in support of the summons to dismiss the proceedings.

Ruling set aside
Turaga stated that his view was that the proceedings should never have been instituted against Naidu in the first place.

In the affidavit, Turaga said he had conveyed to Naidu that his view was that the ruling of 22 November 2022 ought to be set aside and the proceedings dismissed.

He added that Naidu had confirmed he would not seek to recover any costs he had incurred in defending the proceedings.

Justice Gounder said the Attorney-General played an important function as the guardian of public interest in contempt proceedings which alleged conduct scandalising the court.

Lawyer Richard Naidu’s conviction ruled not to be recorded and the charge of contempt dismissed. Video: Fijivillage.com

He said the position of the Attorney-General had shifted and he was not seeking an order of committal against Naidu.

The judge said Turaga dkid not support the findings that Naidu was guilty of contempt scandalising the court.

He said it had not been suggested that the present Attorney-General was acting unfairly as the representative of public interest in consenting to an order setting aside the judgement.

Facebook posting
Naidu was found guilty in November last year by High Court judge Justice Jude Nanayakkara for contempt scandalising the court.

Naidu posted on his Facebook page a picture of a judgment in a case represented by his associate that had the word “injunction” misspelt [as “injection”], and then made some comments that he was pretty sure the applicant wanted an injunction.

The committal proceeding was brought against Naidu by the then Attorney-General, Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum.

Naidu was represented by Jon Apted while Feizal Haniff represented the Attorney-General.

Rashika Kumar is a Fijivillage reporter. Republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Post Fiji Ltd has engaged a law firm to recover $9.6 million from an Australia-based mail logistics company that used Post Fiji’s logo to conduct business dealings with postal agencies around the globe.

This, according to the Auditor-General in his report on the review of public enterprises 2020-2021 that was tabled in Parliament this week.

The Auditor-General said Post Fiji Ltd had no legal contract with the company that racked up the $9.6 million debt.

“To ensure that the company’s (Post Fiji Ltd) interests are always protected, any business engagements with external parties must be formalised with an agreement endorsed by the board,” said the Auditor-General.

“An international mail logistics company based in Australia used the logo of Post Fiji (Pte) Ltd for its business dealings with various postal agencies around the globe.

“Consequently, the international postal agencies recognised Post Fiji Ltd as the sender of all the international mails sent by the international company.

“As a result, Post Fiji (Pte) Ltd was invoiced by the international postal agencies for doing business with the international company.

“In addition, under the Universal Postal Union Agreement, Post Fiji (Pte) Ltd has a legal obligation to pay the international postal agencies through an invoice amount.

“To recover its costs, Post Fiji Ltd invoiced the international company for the amount it paid plus a percentage mark-up.

“Post Fiji (Pte) Ltd was unable to recover the cost as there was no legally binding agreement with the international company.”

The Auditor-General recommended that Post Fiji should explore all avenues to recover the significant debt owed and ensure that all significant business engagements in the future are endorsed by the board and an agreement is in place.

Post Fiji Ltd said lawyers were handling the matter and the legal battle between PFL, and the international company would take some time to resolve.

The balance of $9.6 million remains outstanding since June 2020.

Anish Chand is a Fiji Times reporter. Republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz