Palau’s Supreme Court has denied an application by the Senate for a stay order on the government’s plan to take third country nationals deported from the United States.

President Surangel Whipps’ has agreed for Palau to take up to 75 people, with the US to give Palau US$7.5 million in development funds.

However, the Senate — the upper house of the Palau National Congress (Olbiil era Kelulau) — and a citizens group went to court arguing the deal is unlawful and not in Palau’s interests, but their motion has been denied.

While the Senate earlier tried to block the deal through legislation, the House of Delegates did not approve.

The President has said Palau will decide on a case by case basis which deported people are accepted.

A source within the government said it was likely that the first group of deported people to arrive in Palau would number about 10.

Whipps’ office said the Senate and traditional leaders have declined attempts to meet for discussions about the issue.

The Senate is pushing for a referendum on the issue, as indicated in a vote on the issue last month.

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

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

On the eve of his Australian tour, Israel’s President Isaac Herzog faces huge opposition to his visit.

In a “National Day of Protest”, hundreds of thousands are expected to march in 30 cities around Australia, including every state capital city tomorrow evening.

Herzog’s visit has been opposed by Green Party and several Labor and Independent MPs, some of whom are expected to join the marches.

The NSW Minns government has gone to extraordinary lengths to stop the Sydney protest by declaring it a “major event” under the Major Events Act. The organisers, Palestinian Action Group, will challenge the validity of this action in the Supreme Court tomorrow before the protest.

Herzog’s visit follows the anti-semitic massacre in Bondi on December 14 when 15 people were killed and many more injured by two allegedly Islamic State-inspired gunmen. One gunman was killed and the other is now facing multiple charges of murder.

The idea of bringing Herzog to Australia originated with senior Australian Zionists, including the president of the Zionist Federation of Australia Jeremy Liebler, who is a personal friend of Herzog.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese then invited Herzog to make an official visit “to support the Jewish community at what has been a very difficult time”. He has justified his decision as reflecting a “need to build social cohesion in this country.”

Conflict rather than unity
In fact, the visit was always likely to create conflict rather than unity in Australia.

Scores of community and activist groups, including the progressive Jewish Council of Australia and NSW Council for Civil Liberties, have condemned the Herzog visit.

Amnesty International Australia urged the Australian government “to comply with its international and domestic legal obligations and investigate Herzog for genocide… As President of Israel, Herzog has overseen and legitimised Israel’s genocide and has made statements amounting to genocidal incitement.”

Federal Labor MP Ed Husic, who was previously a Minister in the Albanese government, told The Guardian that he was “uncomfortable” with the visit and did not think it would build social cohesion. He pointed to findings by a United Nations Commission of Inquiry that Herzog and other Israeli officials were “liable to prosecution for incitement to genocide” for comments made after the October 7 attack by Hamas in 2023.

Australian human rights lawyer Chris Sidoti was a member of the UN Commission of Inquiry; he told Michael West Media that:

“There is both a legal scope and a moral duty to arrest Isaac Herzog on arrival.”

Adding to the controversy over his visit, President Herzog will bring with him Doron Almog, a retired Israel Defence Forces major-general. Almog, who is currently chair of the Jewish Agency for Israel, has formerly faced arrest warrants over allegations he committed war crimes in Gaza in 2002.

A coalition of legal groups has asked the Australian federal police to investigate and arrest Almog over war crimes allegations.

War crimes challenge
Members of this coalition, including the Australian Centre for International Justice, the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights, and the Al Mezan Center for Human Rights have lodged a submission with the Australian Federal Police (AFP) arguing that Almog should be investigated for crimes committed during his time as an IDF Commander between 2000 and 2003.

“Under his command, the Israeli military was responsible for countless and extensive human rights violations and grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions inside the illegally occupied Gaza Strip,” the submission alleges.

The AFP has referred the submission to its Special Investigations Command. Almog has previously denied the allegations and a UK warrant for Almog’s arrest was previously withdrawn.

The Zionist community is meanwhile celebrating Almog’s visit.

According to a Zionist Federation of Australia promotion, Almog was due to arrive before Herzog and appear at a conference at a Sydney Synagogue yesterday alongside Zionist Liberal MP Julian Leeser to discuss anti-semitism education.

3500 police to flood Sydney’s CBD
Tension is high in Sydney where Premier Chris Minns has announced a “massive policing presence” to flood the CBD with 3500 armed police during the Herzog visit.

Premier Minns has warned Sydney’s residents against travelling to the CBD even for work on Monday, predicting disruption and even riots, despite the fact that hundreds of pro-Palestinian protests over more than two years have been uniformly peaceful.

Despite his warnings, many thousands are expected to attend a protest at Sydney’s traditional weekday protest place Town Hall Square at 6 pm tomorrow, from which they plan to march to Parliament House.

Popular 2021 Australian of the Year and campaigner against sexual assault Grace Tame and Greens Senator Mehreen Faruqi are among the advertised speakers. NSW Labor MP barrister Stephen Lawrence and Cameron Murphy are also attending and expected to speak.

The NSW government tried to deter the protesters by using unprecedented laws passed in late December to declare that no protest permits will be granted to a large swathe of Sydney which includes Town Hall Square. The ban has been in place since the laws were passed.

Although the ban does not stop people peacefully assembling, it grants the police full powers to make “move on” orders to disband protests and prevent marches.

These powers were used when mounted police prevented hundreds of peaceful Deaths in Custody campaigners conducting a short march on the pavement last month.

A coalition of groups including the Palestinian Action Group and Jews Against Occupation 48 has challenged the laws as unconstitutional.

‘Major event’ status
With support for the march growing despite Minns’ warnings, his government took a further extraordinary step yesterday and declared Herzog’s visit a major event under the Major Events Act. The legislation is typically invoked to manage crowds during sporting events or very large festivals.

The act gives the police powers to issue directions to people not to enter an area, and to search people.  Anyone who fails to comply with police directions may face penalties, including fines of up to $5,500.

But the Act states that it is not intended to be used against political protests. Today, the Palestinian Action Group announced that it will make an urgent application to the NSW Supreme Court tomorrow to declare the “major event” declaration invalid.

While in Sydney, Herzog and his delegation will visit families whose family members were killed in the Bondi massacre and will attend an invitation only “Solidarity and Light” event at the ICC centre in Darling Harbour.  He will then travel to Melbourne and Canberra.

On Friday, the independent media outlet Lamestream reported that  Prime Minister Albanese had invited him to visit Parliament although he is not expected to address Parliament.

Wendy Bacon is a Sydney investigative journalist and retired journalism professor, and contributes to many publications, including Michael West Media. She is also a committee member of the Asia Pacific Media Network.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

The Paris-based global media freedom watchdog Reporters Without Borders (RSF) says it “regrets” the Israeli Supreme Court’s decision to grant the Tel Aviv government 30 days to respond to a petition to allow journalists access to the Gaza Strip following the ceasefire.

RSF said in a statement it believes the blockade on access — in place for more than two years — remains illegal, unjustifiable and contrary to the public’s fundamental right to news and information, and should be lifted at once.

During a hearing before the Supreme Court on October 23 — in which RSF participated as an interested party having contributed an amicus brief in the petition by the Jerusalem-based Foreign Press Association (FPA) — the Israeli government acknowledged that the ceasefire constituted a significant change in circumstances justifying a review of its policy on journalists’ access.

The court ordered the Israeli government to present a clear position on its blockade in light of the new circumstances but granted it another 30 days to do this, despite the urgency of the situation and although the Israeli government had already benefited from six postponements since the start of these proceedings.

“If the blockade preventing journalists from entering Gaza was already illegal and seriously violated the fundamental right to information of the Palestinian, Israeli, and international public, it is now totally unjustifiable,” said RSF director-general Thibaut Bruttin.

“RSF deplores the Supreme Court’s decision to give the Israeli government 30 days to reach this obvious conclusion, and calls on the Israeli government to open Gaza’s borders to journalists immediately and without conditions.”

Israel has closed off Gaza and denied external journalists’ independent access to the besieged territory since 7 October 2023.

To counter this ban, RSF has joined the FPA’s petition for the Gaza Strip’s borders to be opened to independent entry by journalists, and filed an amicus brief with the Israeli Supreme Court on October 15 that was designed to help the judges understand the FPA’s position.

Who killed Shireen?
Meanwhile, an investigation into Palestinian-American journalist Shireen Abu Akleh’s assassination reveals new evidence and cover-ups by Israeli and US governments.

This major investigative documentary examines the facts surrounding the killing of Al Jazeera journalist Akleh, as she was reporting in Jenin, in the occupied West Bank, in May 2022.

Palestine: Who killed Shireen?         Video: Al Jazeera

It sets out to discover who killed her — and after months of painstaking research, succeeds in identifying the Israeli sniper who pulled the trigger.

Eleven Al Jazeera journalists have been killed by the Israeli military among at least 248 Gaza media workers slain by the IDF, reports Anadolu Ajansı,

A UN spokesman on Friday marked the International Day to End Impunity for Crimes Against Journalists yesterday with a reminder of the dangers faced by journalists worldwide — particularly in the Gaza Strip.

“Nearly nine out of 10 journalists killings remain unresolved. Gaza has been the deadliest place for journalists in any conflict,” Stephane Dujarric, spokesman to the UN secretary-general, told reporters.

Secretary-General Antonio Guterres called for “independent, impartial” investigations into the killings of journalists, emphasising that “impunity is an assault on press freedom and a threat to democracy itself,” Dujarric said.

“When journalists are silenced, we all lose our voice,” he said.

Pacific Media Watch collaborates with Reporters Without Borders.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Fijian Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka has hinted that the country may “hold its first-ever referendum” following a landmark Supreme Court opinion aimed at amending the 2013 Constitution.

On Friday, the nation’s highest court ruled that thresholds for constitutional amendments should be lowered — requiring only a two-thirds majority in parliament and a simple majority of voters in a referendum.

The ruling followed a three-day hearing in August, after Rabuka’s Cabinet, in June, had sought clarification on making changes to parts of the Constitution.

Submissions came from the State, seven political parties, the Fiji Law Society, and the Fiji Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Commission.

Rabuka said that the Supreme Court’s opinion established a “clear and democratic pathway” for his government’s constitutional reform efforts.

“This opinion provides clarity on matters of constitutional law and governance. It will now go before Cabinet for further deliberation, after which I, as Head of Government, will announce the way forward,” he said in a statement.

However, the Fiji Labour Party, while welcoming the Supreme Court’s opinion, expressed concerns over the lowering of the current “75 percent double super majority requirement” to amend the constitution.

Fijians of Indian descent make up just over 32 percent of Fiji’s total population.

Indo-Fijians ‘particularly vulnerable’
Labour leader and former Prime Minister Mahendra Chaudhry said that the Indo-Fijian community felt “particularly vulnerable” due to the nation’s race-based political tensions, which have resulted in four coups.

He noted that the coalition’s “unwillingness to spell out the constitutional changes it was contemplating” had made Indo-Fijians “apprehensive”.

“It is for this reason that Labour had submitted that constitutional changes should be left to political negotiations with a view to achieving consensus, and stability,” he added.

But Rabuka dismissed Chaudhry’s concerns on Monday, saying that his “argument does not stand”.

“In a referendum, every community is part of the decision. Indo-Fijians, like all other minority groups, vote as equal citizens,” he said.

He said that any government wanting to change the constitution would need support from the whole nation.

“This forces proposals to be fair, broad, and inclusive. Discriminatory ideas would never survive such a test.”

‘Generalised statements’ criticised
Rabuka said Chaudhry should refrain from making “generalised statements”, adding that he does not have the mandate to speak for all Indo-Fijians.

“Chaudhry says change should only come through political negotiations and consensus. But that usually means a few leaders making deals in closed rooms. That gives a small group of politicians’ veto power over the entire country, blocking needed changes and leaving Fiji stuck,” he said.

“A referendum is the opposite of backroom politics. It is open, transparent, and gives the final say to the people themselves. That is real democracy. That is what the Coalition Government welcomes entirely.”

While Rabuka’s People’s Alliance Party wanted the 2013 Constitution thrown out and replaced with the previous 1997 Constitution, he said the former Prime Minister should “move past the old style of politics and recognise that Fiji may now hold its first-ever referendum”.

“That would be a historic step, one that strengthens democracy for every community, not weakens it.

“As your Prime Minister, I give my assurance to all Fijians that this process belongs to you.”

When Voreqe Bainimarama walked out of Parliament after his government lost by a single vote on Christmas Eve in December 2022, he told reporters who swarmed around him in the capital, Suva: “This is democracy and this is my legacy [the] 2013 Constitution.”

Visibly shellshocked
His most trusted ally Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum, looking visibly shellshocked at FijiFirst’s loss of power, said at the time: “We hope that the new government will adhere to the rule of law.”

Sayed-Khaiyum is widely viewed as the architect of the 2013 Constitution, although he disputes that claim.

Critics of the document, which is the country’s fourth constitution, argue that it was imposed by the Bainimarama administration

Meanwhile, the country’s chiefs want the 2013 Constitution gone. In May, the Great Council of Chiefs (GCC) unanimously rejected the document as “restricting a lot of work for the iTaukei (indigenous Fijians)”.

Following the Supreme Court opinion, the head of of GCC told local media that the 2013 Constitution lacked cultural legitimacy and undermined Fiji’s democratic capacity.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

She made it clear in her acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention in August, again at her televised debate with Donald Trump a few weeks later, and in all her interviews since.

Vice-President Kamala Harris, if or when elected the 47th United States president, will continue the centre-right policies of her recent predecessors, especially her current boss, President Joe Biden.

This likely means that efforts to address income equality and poverty, to abandon policies that beget violence overseas, and to confront the latticework of discrimination that affects Americans of colour and Black women especially, will be limited at best.

If Harris wins today’s election, her being a Black and South Asian woman in the most powerful office in the world will not mean much to marginalised people anywhere, because she will wield that power in the same racist, sexist and Islamophobic ways as previous presidents.

“I’m not the president of Black America. I’m the president of the United States of America,” President Barack Obama had said on several occasions during his presidency when asked about doing more for Black Americans while in office. As a presidential candidate, Kamala Harris is essentially doing the same.

And as it was the case with Obama’s presidency, this is not good news for Black Americans, or any other marginalised community.

Take the issue of housing.

Blanket housing grant
Harris’s proposed $25,000 grant to help Americans buy homes for the first time is a blanket grant, one that in a housing market historically tilted towards white Americans, will invariably discriminate against Black folks and other people of colour.

Harris’s campaign promise does not even discern between “first-time buyers” whose parents and siblings already own homes, and true “first-generation” buyers who are more likely not white, and do not have any generational wealth.

It seems Harris wants to appear committed to helping “all Americans”, even if it means her policies would primarily help (mostly white) Americans already living middle-class lives. Any real chance for those among the working class and the working poor to have access to the three million homes Harris has promised is between slim and none.

Harris’s pledges about reproductive rights are equally non-specific and thus less than reassuring to those who already face discrimination and erasure.

She says, if elected president, she would “codify Roe v Wade”. Every Democratic president since Jimmy Carter has made such a promise and yet failed to keep it.

Even if Congress were to pass such a law, the far right would challenge this law in court. Even if the federal courts decided to upload such a law, the Supreme Court decisions that followed between 1973 and 2022 gave states the right to restrict abortion based on fetus viability, meaning that most restrictions already in place in many states would remain.

And with half the states in the US either banning abortion entirely or severely restricting it, codification of Roe — if it ever actually materialises — would at best reset the US to the precarity around reproductive rights that has existed since 1973.

Less acccess to resources
Even if Harris miraculously manages to keep her promise, American women of colour, and women living in poverty, will still have less access to contraceptives, to abortions, and to prenatal and neonatal care, because all Roe ever did was to make such care “legal”.

The law never made it affordable, and certainly never made it so that all women had equal access to services in every state in the union.

Given that she is poised to become America’s first woman/woman of colour/Black woman president, Harris’s vague and wide-net promises on reproductive rights, which would do little to help any women, but especially marginalised women, are damning.

Sure, it is good that Harris talks about Black girls and women like the late Amber Nicole Thurman who have been denied reproductive rights in states like Georgia, with deadly results. But her words mean nothing without a clear action plan.

Where Harris failed the most of all, however, is tackling violence — overwhelmingly targeting marginalised, sidelined, silenced and criminalised folks — in the US and overseas.

During a live and televised interview with billionaire Oprah Winfrey in September, Harris expanded on the revelation she made during her earlier debate with Trump that she is a gun owner.

“If somebody breaks into my house they’re getting shot,” Harris said with a smile. “I probably should not have said that,” she swiftly added. “My staff will deal with that later.”

Grabbing attention of gun-owners
The vice-president seemed confident that her remark would eventually be seen by pro-gun control democrats as a necessary attempt at grabbing the attention of gun-owning, centre-right voters, who could still be dissuaded from voting for Trump.

Nonetheless, her casual statement about the use of lethal force revealed much more than her desire to secure the votes of “sensible”, old-school right wingers. It illuminated the blitheness with which Harris takes the issue of the US as a violent nation and culture.

It is hard to believe Harris as president would be an advocate for “common sense” measures seeking “assault weapons bans, universal background checks, red flag laws” when she talks so casually about shooting people.

Her decision to treat gun violence as yet another issue for calculated politicking is alarming, especially when Black folk — including Black women — face death by guns at disproportionate rates, particularly at the hands of police officers and white vigilantes.

Despite Trump’s disgusting claims, Harris is a Black woman. Many Americans assume she would do more to protect them than other presidents. However, her dismissive attitude towards gun violence shows that President Harris — regardless of her racial background — would not offer any more security and safety to marginalised communities, including Black women, than her predecessors.

The assumption that as a part-Black, part-South Asian president, Harris would curtail American violence that maims and kills Black, brown and Asian bodies all over the world also appears to be baseless.

In repeatedly saying that she “will ensure America always has the strongest, most lethal fighting force in the world”, Harris has made clear that she has every intention to continue with the lethal, racist, imperialistic policies of her Democratic and Republican predecessors, without reflection, recalibration or an ounce of remorse.

Carnage in Gaza
Just look at the carnage in Gaza she has overseen as vice-president.

Despite saying multiple times that she and Biden “have been working around the clock” for a ceasefire in Gaza, the truth is that Biden and Harris have not secured a ceasefire simply because they do not want one.

Harris as president will be just as fine with Black, brown, and Asian lives not mattering in the calculations of her future administration’s foreign policy, as she has been as vice-president and US senator.

Anybody voting for Harris in this election — including yours truly — should be honest about why. Sure, there is excitement around having a woman — a biracial, Black and South Asian woman at that — as American president for the first time in history. This excitement, combined with her promise of “we’re not going back” in reference to Trump’s presidency, and many pledges to protect what’s left of US democracy,  provide many Americans with enough reason to support the Harris-Walz ticket.

Yet, some seem to be supporting Kamala Harris under the impression that as a Black and South Asian woman, she would value the lives of people who look like her, and once elected, support marginalised people much better than her predecessors.

This is a delusion.

Just like Obama once did, Harris wants to be president of the United States of America. She has no intention of being the President of “Black America” or the marginalised. She made this clear, over and again, throughout her campaign, and through her work as vice-president to Joe Biden.

There is a long list of reasons to vote for Harris in this election, but the assumption that her presidency would be supportive of the rights and struggles of the marginalised, simply because of her identity, should not be on that list.

Donald Earl Collins, professorial lecturer at the American University in Washington, DC, is the author of Fear of a “Black” America: Multiculturalism and the African American Experience (2004). This article was first published by Al Jazeera.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

The Philippine Supreme Court has granted temporary protection to an environmental activist abducted in Pangasinan earlier this year.

In its resolution dated September 9 — but only made public this week — the court granted Francisco “Eco” Dangla III’s petition for temporary protection, and prohibited the respondents, including high-ranking soldiers and police officers, to be near the activist’s location.

“Furthermore, you, respondents, and all persons and entities acting and operating under your directions, instructions, and orders are PROHIBITED from entering within a radius of one kilometer of the person, places of residence, work, and present locations of petitioner and his immediate family,” the resolution read.

The respondents are:

• Philippine Army chief Lieutenant General Roy Galido
• Philippine National Police (PNP) chief Police General Rommel Francisco Marbil
• Brigadier General Gulliver Señires (in his capacity as 702nd Brigade commanding general Brigadier)
• Ilocos Region police chief Police Brigadier General Lou Evangelista
• Police Colonel Jeff Fanged (in his capacity as Pangasinan police chief)

Aside from giving Dangla temporary protection, the court also granted his petition for writs of amparo and habeas data. A writ of amparo is a legal remedy, which is usually a protection order in the form of a restraining order.

The writ of habeas data compels the government to destroy information that could cause harm.

These extraordinary writs are usually invoked by activists and progressives in the Philippines as they face intimidation from the government and its forces.

Dangla’s abduction
Dangla and another activist, Joxelle Tiong, were abducted in Pangasinan last March 24.

According to witnesses, they saw two men who were forced to board a vehicle in Barangay Polo, San Carlos City.

The two activists, who who had been red-tagged for their advocacies, were serving as convenors of the Pangasinan People’s Strike for the Environment.

They “vocally defended the people and ecosystems of Pangasinan against the harms of coal-fired power plants, nuclear power plants, incinerator plants, and offshore mining in Lingayen Gulf,” at the time of their abduction.

Three days later, several groups announced that Dangla and Tiong were found safe, but that the two had gone through a “harrowing ordeal.”

There have been instances where the appellate court granted activists the privilege of writ of amparo, like in the case of labour activists Loi Magbanua and Ador Juat, where the court issued permanent protection orders for them and their immediate families.

Unfortunately, this was not the case for other activists, such as young environmentalists Jhed Tamano and Jonila Castro.

The two were first reported missing by activist groups. Security forces later said they were “safe and sound” and that they had allegedly “voluntarily surrendered” to the military.

However, Tamano and Castro went off-script during a press conference organised by the anti-insurgency task force and revealed that they were actually abducted.

In February, the High Court granted the two temporary protection and their writs of amparo and habeas data petitions. However, the appellate court in August denied the protection order for Tamano and Castro.

Associate Justice Emily San Gaspar-Gito fully dissented in the decision and said: “It would be uncharacteristic for the courts, especially this court, to simply fold their arms and ignore the palpable threats to petitioners’ life, liberty and security and just wait for the irreversible to happen to them.”

Republished with permission from Rappler.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

A Papua New Guinea MP, Peter Isoaimo, who had been ousted by the National Court in an alleged bribery case, has been reinstated by the Supreme Court on appeal.

A three-member Supreme Court bench found that the National Court had erred in finding that Kairuku MP Isoaimo had committed bribery and ousting him in a Court of Disputed Returns trial in June last year.

The National Court judge, Justice Teresa Berrigan, then ordered a byelection. However, this was overturned last Friday on appeal.

Outside court, Isoaimo’s lawyer George Kult confirmed that Isoaimo can now return to Parliament and continue serving the people of Kairuku district in Central province.

Justice Susan Purdon-Sully handed down the decision on behalf of the two other judges, Panuel Mogish and Jacinta Murray. She said the earlier decision by Justice Teresa Berrigan last year had been quashed.

The three-member bench found that the petition had a “pleading deficiency” in that the bribery was done with the knowledge and authority of Isoaimo and that he had aided his campaign coordinator Maso Makuri in committing the offence.

They found that the petitioner, Paru Aihi, had failed to notify Isoaimo of the facts of the allegation which he could have responded to. They upheld Isoaimo’s appeal in that Justice Berrigan erred on mixed law and fact.

‘Basic yet fundamental’
“Pleadings draw evidence which is the most basic yet fundamental feature of a petition,” Justice Sully read.

“Where an allegation is serious in nature the onus is on the petitioner to prove to the entire satisfaction of the court.”

The judges found that the failure to plead facts of the allegation contravened section 208 (a) of the Organic Law on National and Local Level Government Elections.

Outside court, a teary-eyed Isoaimo said it had been embarrassing to deal with the wrong National Court decision which had then “seemed like the truth”.

However, he said his two decades of reputation built through parliamentary leadership had gained him loyal supporters.

“I am thankful for my supporters, now it’s time to get back to work as we have a lot to do,” he said.

Isoaimo is a member of the National Alliance and will bolster the NA’s ranks in government.

Melyne Baroi is a PNG Post-Courier reporter. Republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Former MP for Madang Open and anti-corruption campaigner Bryan Kramer has filed a Supreme Court appeal against a National Court ruling dismissing his application for leave to review a Leadership Tribunal’s decision to dismiss him from office.

His appeal to the Supreme Court follows the refusal of a leave to review application in the National Court presided by Justice John Carey on August 18.

Kramer said in a statement that he had filed an application on the 23 May 2023 in the National Court to review the decision of the Leadership Tribunal.

He later withdrew this and refiled on June 30.

The refiled application raised nine primary grounds, including breach of natural justice, procedural unfairness, apprehension of bias in being denied a fair hearing, unreasonableness and being oppressive and harsh and not “reasonably justifiable in a democratic society”.

After waiting almost three months for a judge to hear his leave application, the matter was listed before Justice John Carey on August 18. However, straight after hearing detailed submission from counsels, Justice Carey delivered an oral judgement refusing Kramer’s application.

Justice Carey ruled that Kramer had not satisfied all the requirements, in particular an arguable case

Further nine grounds
Kramer is now appealing the judge’s ruling on a further nine grounds that include an allegation that the judge had failed to properly deliver a reasoned judicial decision.

He will submit that the judge had erred in directing Kramer’s counsel to narrow his submissions to the ground of apprehension of bias to the exclusion of the issues raised in the eight other grounds.

Further, the judge had failed to consider specific matters raised in each of nine grounds.

The judge had delivered two judgments, the first oral and the second published without indicating to parties, and that was altered and expounded on the reasons in the oral judgement.

He was dismissed in May this year by a a Leadership Tribunal comprising Justice Lawrence Kangwia and senior Magistrates Josephine Nidue and Edward Komia.

The Tribunal found him guilty on seven of thirteen allegations of misconduct in office

Five of the seven misconduct charges were in relation to decisions concerning the Madang District Development Authority (DDA) that he had failed to comply with legislative administrative requirements, and the misapplication of district funds to which they could not be lawfully applied.

Facebook publications
The remaining two misconduct charges were in relation to his Facebook publications that were found to have “scandalised the judiciary”.

The background of the two charges of him scandalising the judiciary were that in October 2019 he had published a three-part series of articles on Facebook concerning an arrest warrant against former Prime Minister Peter O’Neill.

The first charge was over part of his publication insinuating a conflict of interest by Chief Justice Sir Gibbs Salika in publishing the words “a relevant matter to note is that the Chief Justice was only recently appointed by O’Neill late last year”.

The second charge was over publishing the words “What was not anticipated was that O’Neill and his lawyers would solicit the assistance from the Chief Justice and desperate enough to submit fabricated documents to mislead the court that the warrant was defective as a means to obtain a stay order”.

The Tribunal had recommended by majority that Kramer pay a fine of K2000 (about NZ$922) for each for the five charges in relation to the Madang District Development Authority as they were decisions made by the DDA Board and not Kramer alone.

However, it recommended unanimously for his dismissal from office in relation to his Facebook publications in scandalising the judiciary.

Pacific Media Watch reports that in a profile by The Guardian in 2019, Bryan Kramer — BK as he is known — was described as a “rising star in PNG politics” and as an anti-corruption campaigner who was instrumental in bringing to light the UBS scandal that helped to bring down former Prime Minister Peter O’Neill’s leadership.

Republished from the PNG Post-Courier with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

The Vanuatu Supreme Court has ruled in favour of the opposition, which contested a ruling by the parliamentary Speaker regarding what constitutes an absolute majority in Parliament.

The court case followed a motion of no-confidence in the prime minister being defeated under a technicality of the rules as interpreted by the Speaker.

Former prime minister Sato Kilman, who is now in the opposition, said the judge had ruled an absolute majority in Parliament was 26, so the opposition won the case.

But he said the judge had stayed the case until 3pm on Monday to allow any appeal.

“We are glad, because we believed that we were right from the start, and that is why we lodged the application to the court,” Kilman said.

Earlier this month the opposition, in seeking to remove Prime Minister Ishmael Kalsakau, won 26 votes in the 52-member House, while the government got 23 votes.

There was one abstention — from the Speaker — one seat is vacant and one is empty due to that MP getting medical treatment overseas.

Vanuatu’s constitution states that an absolute majority is needed to oust a prime minister and this has been interpreted to mean 27 MPs in the 52-member Parliament.

Legal precedent
Kalsakau said there was legal precedent to support this position.

In the judgment released today, the judge said the court “concludes that the actual number of members of Parliament when this vote was taken is the relevant number on which an absolute majority should be based”.

“It is the view of this court that the applicants have shown that their Constitutional rights, as set out in the application filed on 17th August 2023, have been infringed by the 1st respondent,” the judgment said.

“They are entitled to relief sought.”

It also said an order would be issued about that relief, but the order would include a stay to allow an appeal before any further steps are taken to enforce the order.

Supreme Court has just ruled that the vote of 26 MP’s to oust the PM last week was valid and that the PM was voted out by an absolute majority of 26 in a Parliament with 51 members. So we are still only in Government due to a stay order granted to allow us time to appeal.

— Ralph Regenvanu (@RRegenvanu) August 25, 2023

Cathy Solomon, 64, who lives in Port Vila, said the majority of people in Vanuatu were suffering because of “unfair and sad” politicians who were only thinking of self preservation.

She said the country’s politicians had failed in their purpose as elected representatives of the people.

She said it was time for more women to get into Parliament so they could challenge and change Vanuatu’s precarious political situation.

Hendon Kalsakau, 65, a chief of the Coconut Tribe on Ifira island, said the situation was “affecting deeply” the ni-Vanuatu people.

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

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Dan McGarry, who served as a director of the company when he had his visa revoked in 2019, said the ruling was a “big win for independent media”.

McGarry’s work permit application was rejected by then Prime Minister Charlot Salwai’s government.

The reason given by the Labour Commissioner Murielle Meltenoven at the time was that McGarry’s role — who at the time had lived and worked in Port Vila for 14 years — could be taken up by a ni-Vanuatu person and that he had failed to train his local staff.

The Daily Post claimed that the decision to revoke McGarry’s visa was made after the newspaper had published stories concerning the arrest and arbitrary deportation of a group of Chinese nationals, some of whom had been granted Vanuatu citizenship.

McGarry and the company claimed that Meltenoven’s decision was a political one and argued that the government had no right to meddle in their lawful hiring decisions and appealed the decision.

The issue had escalated and he was barred by the government from returning to the country, a decision which was later overturned by the Supreme Court.

Acted unlawfully
On Tuesday, March 28, Justice Dudley Aru ruled that both the Labour Commissioner and the Appeals Committee acted unlawfully in barring McGarry’s employment.

“After three long years, I feel vindicated,” McGarry, who testified in the case, said in a statement.

A former Vanuatu Daily Post media director and journalist has won a legal challenge on Tuesday against the government’s decision to revoke his visa. https://t.co/KrJmYLzoCh

— RNZ Pacific (@RNZPacific) March 30, 2023

“Sadly, it took so long to get justice that I had to move on to other work, but this is a crucial principle that had to be defended.”

The use of bureaucratic measures to meddle in private business decisions and stifle our free and independent media is unacceptable in a free and democratic society,” he said.

“I’m grateful to the owners of the Daily Post and to all my colleagues and friends there who have never wavered in their stalwart defence of our right to chart our own course,” he said.

“This is a big win for the Daily Post, and a big win for independent media in Vanuatu.”

McGarry said it was not known whether a state appeal is forthcoming.

RNZ Pacific has contacted the Vanuatu’s labour office for comment.

Here’s a link to the judgment: https://t.co/zt9lndE1BI

— Dan McGarry (@dailypostdan) March 30, 2023

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

• Editor’s Comment: Dan McGarry has been a valued contributor to Asia Pacific Report for several years. We congratulate him and the Vanuatu Daily Post for this victory for media freedom in Vanuatu and the Pacific.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

The #HoldTheLine Coalition has urged President Marcos of the Philippines to end persecution of journalists and independent media by dropping all charges against Nobel Peace Prize co-laureate Maria Ressa and her co-accused.

This week, the Philippine Court of Appeals rejected Ressa’s motion for a reconsideration of her 2020 conviction on a trumped-up charge of criminal cyber libel.

This means that after a two-year struggle to overturn her conviction, all that stands between Ressa’s freedom and a lengthy prison sentence is a final appeal to the Supreme Court, and the government’s political will.

“We call on President Marcos to show the world that he rejects the Duterte-era persecution and prosecution of journalists and independent media by immediately withdrawing all charges and cases against Ressa, her co-accused, and her Manila-based news outlet Rappler,” the #HoldTheLine Coalition steering committee said on behalf of more than 80 international organisations — including Reporters Without Borders — joining forces to defend Ressa and support independent media in the Philippines.

“President Marcos should begin by ending his government’s opposition to Ressa’s appeal against her conviction on spurious criminal cyber libel charges, which were pursued and prosecuted by the State despite the Philippine Supreme Court’s warning that the country’s criminalisation of libel is ‘doubtful’.”

There have been 23 individual cases opened by the state against Maria Ressa, Rappler and its employees since 2018.

The criminal cyber libel case is one of seven ongoing cases implicating Ressa. If she is successfully prosecuted in all cases, she theoretically faces up to 100 years in jail.

The criminal cyber libel conviction is the most urgent, with an increased sentence of up to six years and eight months handed down by the Philippine Court of Appeal in July 2022.

Ressa now has just two weeks to file a final appeal to the Philippine Supreme Court, which could then swiftly issue a written verdict, resulting in the enforcement of her prison sentence.

Concurrently, Rappler is also the subject of a shutdown order pursued by the Duterte administration.

— Julie Posetti (ICFJ), Rebecca Vincent (RSF), and Gypsy Guillén Kaiser (CPJ) on behalf of the #HoldTheLine Coalition.

The #HTL Coalition comprises more than 80 organisations around the world. This statement is issued by the #HoldTheLine Steering Committee, but it does not necessarily reflect the position of all or any individual Coalition members or organisations. Pacific Media Watch collaborates with Reporters Without Borders.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

The Chief Justice of Vanuatu has ordered the amendment of a constitutional application against the dissolution of Parliament to exclude the president of the republic from the case.

The application, which was heard in the Supreme Court today in Port Vila, was brought by 27 opposition MPs who were signatories to a motion of no confidence in Prime Minister Bob Loughman earlier this month.

On the motion being tabled in Parliament, the House was dissolved by President Nikenike Vurobaravu at the request of Loughman and his council of ministers.

Vanuatu lawyer Wilson Thompson is the assistant deputy Private Secretary to Vanuatu’s Head of State and was in court today for the proceedings. He said the court found the constitutional application too broad in its scope.

“The Chief Justice, who is the one presiding over the matter, has advised the applicant’s lawyers to amend the constitutional application and make it as an ordinary civil matter,” Thompson said.

He said the core difficulty in the original application was that it named the President as first respondent in the case but he could not be challenged because of the powers accorded to him by the Constitution.

“Because article 28 (3) of the Constitution does provide for the President to dissolve Parliament if he receives a council of ministers’ decision. And that provision does not provide for any other authority, whether from the opposition or whether from the leader of the opposition, for the President to consult before making a dissolution [of Parliament] ”

Thompson said the constitution also did not require the President to base his decision on any specific criteria.

Chief Justice Vincent Lunabek has given until the close of business tomorrow for the application to be amended to exclude the President and until Friday for the Attorney-General to prepare a response.

RNZ Pacific understands the new case is now being built around challenging Loughman and his council of ministers’ decision to request a dissolution of Parliament despite a date having been set by the Speaker of Parliament for the motion of no confidence to be heard.

The entire matter will be back in court on September 2 to see if there is a case to answer.

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

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Papua New Guinea’s Sheriff Security at the Waigani Supreme and National Court have stepped up their surveillance of the court premises following this week’s lawlessness in the city.

All court users including staff and visitors will be strictly monitored, says a statement.

All hazardous and dangerous weapons like knives, pepper spray, mace, razor blades, and illegal materials will be monitored and those found in possession will be ordered to leave the court premises.

All visitors and staff will go through the normal screening process at the entrance of the court premises.

Under Section 3 of the Sheriffs’ Act, the sheriff’s primary role is to execute court orders and provide security at the court’s premises, serving documents including complaints and summonses for a fee, effecting executions, making affidavits and returns and escorting persons to court under a warrant of apprehension/by a writ of habeas corpus.

The Sheriff division is empowered by the Sheriffs’ Act.

It is one of three divisions under the judicial system and its head is the Registrar of the National and Supreme Courts.

Sheriff appointed
The Sheriff is appointed by the Head of the State and both he and his officers are responsible for enforcing judicial orders.

The current situation in the national capital of Port Moresby is a concern and the Sheriff Security officers will now be strictly enforcing the laws, rules and regulations of the organisation for the safety of judicial officers staff and infrastructure of the organisation.

Because the courthouse is accessible and in a centralised location, it is vulnerable to the acts of random violence.

There will be strict court security procedures to not only protect the safety of the people and property within and around the premises of the court, but also to protect the integrity of the judicial process.

The Sheriff Security forces will be collaborating with law enforcement offices, emergency agencies and governing bodies to protect court premises and the judicial processes.

Sheriff Security forces are recognised as an integral part of the Sheriff’s Office mission to protect citizens and officers of the court. The judicial security staff is committed to ensuring the safety of everybody who conducts the business of the court.

Court security is an essential part of the administration of justice.

Saddled with duty
The law enforcement personnel are saddled with the duty of providing security measures within the judicial premises.

The roles of court employees are complimentary to and supportive of the role of judicial officers.

The value and importance of Sheriff Security forces is a must for the organisation. Sheriff Security forces are the sentinels in the organisation.

They are the enforcers of policies and laws inside the organisation.

They are the key elements of peacekeeping inside the premises of the organisation.

They prevent threat and other crimes from happening inside the organisation.

The Sheriff Security officers are trained on how to work and interact with the public who enter the court premises.

At the same time, the Sheriff Security officers are also trained to understand the operations of the laws, rules and regulations of the organisation.

Republished with the permission of PNG Post-Courier.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Some said the US Supreme Court’s controversial ruling on abortion was none of our business, because we don’t have the same legal or political set-up, let alone its religious cleavages and cultural conflicts.

Opinion leaders in our media didn’t agree — and provoked a significant political response.

Days after his election to the National Party leadership in December last year, Christopher Luxon sat down for an interview where he outlined some hardline views on abortion.

Pressed by Newshub’s Jenna Lynch on whether he felt the practice was tantamount to murder, he said “that’s what a pro-life position is”.

Those comments have become newsworthy again this week, as the US Supreme Court handed down a decision to overturn the right to abortion enshrined in the decision Roe v Wade.

Local media, pro-choice advocates and politicians all expressed concern that the National leader would act on his beliefs, and work to ban a practice he considers all-but murderous, if he was able to form a government.

Their worry only escalated after National’s MP for Tāmaki, Simon O’Connor, posted a Facebook status following the Supreme Court’s decision saying “Today is a good day”.

Noted Luxon’s pro-life views
The New Zealand Herald ran an initial story focusing on how every party in Parliament had condemned the court’s ruling bar National. It also noted Luxon’s pro-life views.

Even after Luxon moved to clarify that there would be no changes to abortion law under any government he leads, Labour’s Grant Robertson said people have a “right to be sceptical” about his statements given the views he expressed to Lynch.

Newshub’s Amelia Wade pressed Luxon further on his stance, asking Luxon for his opinion of women who get abortions. He didn’t answer the question directly in Newshub’s report.

“As I’ve said I have a pro-life stance. I think it’s a very difficult and a very agonising decision,” he said.

These stories — and a corresponding outcry on social media — provoked right-wing figures who see it as an attempt to stir up a US-style culture war.

Political commentator Ben Thomas played down the concern over Luxon’s anti-abortion views in an interview on Newstalk ZB.

“We’ve seen pro-life prime ministers like Bill English, Jim Bolger, deputy prime ministers like Jim Anderton just not go anywhere near [abortion] when they’ve been in government,” he pointed out.

Plea to stop US culture war
On Twitter, he pleaded for people to stop trying to stir up US culture wars in New Zealand.

That was echoed by National’s Nicola Willis, who had been criticised for failing to speak up against the Roe v Wade ruling despite her socially liberal credentials.

“I actually think that these attempts by Labour to import US-style culture wars into New Zealand is irresponsible. It is creating needless anxiety,” she told the Herald.

The concern over abortion becoming a political wedge issue is understandable.

Its transformation into a fundamental political dividing line is part of the reason the US now has some of the most hardline abortion laws in the developed world.

But it’s worth noting there’s an element of political convenience in politicians’ statements as well.

National would benefit if people stopped talking about its leader’s publicly-stated position that abortion is tantamount to murder and go back to discussing the cost of living crisis.

It’s hard to get the politics out of politics.

Still deep divisions
Pro-choice advocates have also taken issue with the idea their anxiety is “needless”.

The decision to take abortion out of the Crimes Act in 2020 only passed by a comparatively narrow margin, 68-51.

Two-thirds of National’s caucus voted against it back then, with the aforementioned Simon O’Connor ending his speech with a Latin phrase which translates to “Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord”.

National MPs also proposed several amendments to that bill which would have restricted abortion access considerably.

Former National MP Amy Adams recently told the media that deep divisions remain in National on the issue.

As for the US culture wars, they appear to have gained a foothold already. Some people might have noticed them camped out on Parliament’s lawns for the better part of a month.

The question for pro-choice supporters is whether to sit back and hope these movements don’t gain momentum, or to apply as much political pressure as possible to protect their own position.

In this case they prompted a strong commitment from an anti-abortion politician to not act on his views if in power. Arguably they succeeded by speaking out strongly and decisively.

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

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

An Aotearoa New Zealand health workforce recruiting agency is fielding calls from senior US doctors who say they can no longer live in their own country.

Accent Health Recruitment has been flooded with inquiries from US doctors wanting to come to New Zealand following the US Supreme Court’s decision overturning abortion rights last Friday.

The ruling has made access to abortions all but impossible in at least 18 states.

Accent Health Recruitment managing director Prudence Thomson said she normally got about 30 inquiries a day but that had doubled since the ruling.

“The emotion and frustration attached to their email, you could just feel it. They’re saying, ‘we can no longer live in this country, we need to come, will you have us in New Zealand?’

“It was quite an emotional tug, as far as of people really wanting to leave and throwing their hands in the air.”

Thomson said most inquiries were from GPs and obstetricians.

‘A spike in inquiries’
“There has been quite a spike in inquiries from them — they’re really passionate about looking after their patients and now they no longer are able to provide the healthcare they want,” she said.

“So they want to come to New Zealand to practise, which is good for New Zealand.”

Thomson said while it was sad these health workers felt forced morally to leave, it would help this country’s health worker “crisis”.

However, she said it would take at least six months before the American health professionals could work in New Zealand.

“Every medical professional needs to get their qualifications verified to come to New Zealand and that takes from three to six months.

“While we want to speed it up we don’t want to cut corners because in a crisis that’s when the weaknesses will be exposed and that’s when the people who want to commit identity fraud could get through.”

However, she said it should still give the chronically understaffed health sector some hope that help was coming.

Messaging about jobs
US nurse McKenzie Mills recently moved to New Zealand and said former colleagues had been messaging her about jobs ever since the US Supreme Court ruled against abortion.

She said she was heartbroken and angry after the ruling.

However, she said she was even more sure now that her decision to move to New Zealand in January was the right one.

“I take care of people and it just really broke my heart that there is so much health care that will be denied to millions of women.”

Mills said she felt like she had “escaped” her own country as a result of the ruling.

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

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz