p olitical reviews • melane s i a 461
PhD dissertation, Department of Political in complaints that he had effectively Science, Northern Illinois University. bought a diplomatic passport. Post-Courier. Daily. Port Moresby. Throughout the year his business interests in Vanuatu and involvement World Bank. 2002. Papua New Guinea: with various politicians increased, World Bank Approves the Release of the raising some concerns. Toward the Second Tranche under the Governance Promotion Adjustment Loan. News end of 20 0 0 Gh o s h ’s involvement with Release 2002 /170/s, Washington d c. the Vanuatu government took a some- what bizarre turn as he presented the country with a gift of a ruby allegedly worth u s$174 million. The stated V a n u a t u purpose of this gift was “that it could be used as collateral to get financial Vanuatu experienced another change assistance” (TP, 6 Dec 2000). No of government as a result of a no- independent valuation of th is ruby wa s confidence motion in 2001. While no- available however, nor was it available confidence motions have formed part to be inspected by customs officers. of the political landscape in Vanuatu The ruby’s valuation on Australian in recent years, what made this event customs declaration forms was only extraordinary was the involvement of u s$40,000, casting further doubt on the Supreme Court in the parliamen- its value. ta ry wrangles. These events have dom- In March of 2001 dealings between inated politics in Vanuatu in 2001. Ghosh and the Vanuatu government At the beginning of the year the took a further strange turn when it government was a coalition headed by was revealed that the government had Barak Sope of the Melanesian Prog re s- signed an agreement with Ghosh that sive Party. The other main partners in apparently would give him bank guar- this coalition were the Union of Mod- antees worth u s$10 million over a erate Parties, the National United period of ten years. As a further part Party, and the Vanuatu Republican of this agreement a Hong Kong–based Party. This government had come to company, Sun Jewel group, who had power in November of 1999, when agreed to buy the ruby for u s$175 then Prime Minister Donald Kalpokas million, was to manufacture gold and of the Vanua‘aku Party resigned in silver coins for sale by the Reserve ord e rtoa v o i dan o - c o n f i d e n ce mo t i o n . Bank of Vanuatu. The agreement pro- Dissatisfaction with the Sope-led vided that Ghosh would pay the costs government had been growing, due in associated with the manufacturing large part to its dealings with Ama- and transport of these coins, and the rendra Nand Ghosh. Ghosh, a Thai Reserve Bank of Vanuatu would keep businessman, came to attention in all proceeds associated with the coins. April of 2000. It was around this time This agreement was signed despite that, soon after giving the Vanuatu doubts expressed by the governor of government 10 million vatu for disas- the reserve bank as to the legality of ter relief, he was appointed Honorary such actions (p i r , 23 Mar 2001). Consul to Thailand and awarded Another factor that contributed honorary citizenship. This resulted 462 the contemporary pacific • fall 2002 to the vote of no confidence was the of the Republic of Vanuatu to dissolve deportation of Marc Neil Jones, pub- parliament. He further stated that he lisher of the Trading Post newspaper, would resign if the president declined on 19 January 2001. Jones was to dissolve parliament. The Speaker deported from Vanuatu for publishing then adjourned the sitting of parlia- stories about the relationship between ment to the following day. Ghosh and the government. He The president, Father John Bani, returned to Vanuatu after two days, declined to dissolve parliament, following an interim order by then because the motivation for doing so Acting Chief Justice Lunabeck that was to avoid voting on the motion of allowed him back into the country no confidence. Parliament therefore until the legality of his deportation reconvened for normal business on could be resolved in court. The matter March 28. Despite his earlier state- was finally settled out of court, with ment, Sope did not resign as prime Jones receiving about 1.4 million vatu minister. As there were no written in costs and personal compensation in questions before parliament, the December of 2001 (Jones, pers comm, Speaker adjourned the sitting to 1 Feb 2002). The deportation raised 4:00 pm on 3 April when parliament widespread concerns about the gov- could debate and vote on the motion ernment’s lack of respect for consti- of no confidence. tutionally enshrined human rights. It Following the submission of the also effectively raised the question of vote of no confidence there were alle- what the government had to hide in gations that agents of Dinh van Than, its dealings with Ghosh. president of the National United Party, Soon after the bank guarantees had approached various opposition agreement was signed, the Union of members of parliament, attempting to Moderate Parties left the coalition bribe them to return to the govern- go v e rnment and joined the opposition, ment. Stories that opposition members led by Edward Natapei of the Vanua- of parliament were being harassed by ‘aku Party. On 26 March the opposi- groups of people, ap p a re n t ly on ord e r s tion, now having a majority in parlia- from various government supporters, ment, submitted to the Speaker, Paul also circulated (TP, 31 Mar 2001). Ren Tari, a notice of a motion of no When parliament reconvened on confidence in Prime Minister Sope. 3 April 2001, the Speaker ruled that The Speaker ruled that this notice was there would be no debate of the in order and placed it on the agenda motion because it contained some to be debated on Tuesday, 3 April, as typing errors or incorrect references part of the First Ordinary Session of to the provisions of the Constitution. Parliament. As this was the last item on the On 27 Ma rch the government with- agenda, the Speaker then closed the drew all government bills intended for First Ordinary Session of Parliament. debate during the session. Sope then That day the opposition took two announced that the Council of Minis- actions. First they filed suit in the ters, which had met earlier in the day, Supreme Court on the grounds that had resolved to advise the president the Speaker’s actions in closing the p olitical reviews • melane s i a 463
First Session of Parliament were anybody to speak, but adjourned par- unconstitutional. They also filed a liament until 17 April. The apparent second motion of no confidence with justification for this action was that the clerk of parliament and issued a no amendment to the written motion summons to the Speaker to call an had been made, so parliament was extraordinary session of parliament adjourned to allow for an amendment to debate this second motion. to be made. On 6 April Chief Justice Lunabeck The next stage in the drama ruled that the closure of parliament occurred on 11 April when the oppo- was in breach of Article 43 (2) of the sition applied to the Supreme Court Constitution, which gives members of for an order commanding the Speaker parliament a constitutional right to to summon parliament to meet that debate motions of no confidence, pro- day at 2:00 p m to allow debate on vided the correct procedures are fol- the motion. Chief Justice Lunabeck lowed. The typing errors or incorrect found that repeated adjournments of references were not sufficient grounds parliament were unconstitutional, as to prevent debate on the motion, par- they did not allow for the debate of ticularly as it had been accepted for the no-confidence motion, a right pro- debate by the Speaker on 26 March. vided by Article 43 (2). He ordered The court ordered that the Speaker that the Speaker summon parliament reconvene parliament forthwith in to meet at 6:00 p m on 12 April, and order to allow debate on the motion allow parliament time to debate and (Natapei & Ors v Tari No 1, 2001). vote on the motion. He further found During this hearing the irregularities that the Speaker’s actions constituted in the motion were rectified by the a breach of the court order of 6 April, court. After this court ruling (which and that any failure to comply with upheld the continued validity of the the new order to convene parliament first motion of no confidence), the would be in contempt of court (Nata- second motion became largely irrele- pei & Ors v Tari No 2, 2001). vant to the political wrangling. Parliament was not convened, and At 2:00 p m on 6 April parliament on 13 April contempt proceedings was reconvened, although many of were initiated. During these proceed- the members of the Sope government ings the Speaker apologized for dis- did not attend or turned up la t e .W h e n obeying the court orders and under- the session finally commenced the took to reconvene parliament at seven Speaker suspended parliament until o’clock that night to allow for debate Tuesday, 10 April. His apparent justi- of the motion. On this apology the fication for doing so was that Stand- contempt proceedings were with- ing Order of Parliament 23 allows for drawn, although the court ordered debate on written motions on Tue s d a y that any failure to convene parliament afternoons. Although members of the that evening would result in the opposition tried to raise points of Speaker being immediately arrested order, the Speaker did not allow any and imprisoned for six months (Nata- me m b er of parliament to speak. On 10 pei & Ors v Tari [Contempt], 2001). April the Speaker again did not allow As a further delaying tactic it 464 the contemporary pacific • fall 2002 appears that Sope approached the act- pended members of parliament then ing commissioner of police seeking to left, along with the other government declare a state of emergency, although members of parliament. They almost nothing came of this action (p i r, 17 immediately filed a constitutional Apr 2001). Parliament finally con- petition with the Supreme Court. vened and debated the no-confidence Meanwhile in parliament, after a brief motion on the evening of 13 April. adjournment, the Speaker closed the Sope was ousted and a coalition first Extraordinary Session, although between the Vanua‘aku Party and the less than half of the members were Union of Moderate Parties became the present. This raised a further legal new government. Edward Natapei of issue of whether the session could be the Vanua‘aku Party became the new closed when parliament was inquo- prime minister, with Serge Vohor of rate. the Union of Moderate Parties On 8 May, at the request of the appointed his deputy prime minister. Speaker, the clerk of parliament issued With the vote of no confidence notice of the Second Extraordinary finally settled, the First Ordinary Ses- Session for 2001. Included on this sion of Parliament of 20 0 1 came to an agenda were a motion of no confi- end, although this was not to mark dence in Prime Minister Natapei and the end of parliamentary turmoil. The a motion to suspend all twenty-seven Speaker, still Mr Paul Ren Tari, sum- government members of parliament moned parliament to meet in the First from three Extraordinary Sessions of Extraordinary Session of 2001 on 3 Parliament and two Ordinary Sessions May, to debate various government of Parliament. Meanwhile the Su p re m e bills and motions. On the morning of Court commenced the hearing on the 3 May no opposition members of par- validity of the suspension of the mem- liament attended, preventing a qu o ru m bers of parliament and as s o c i a t e dm a t- from being forme d. Th at af t e rn o on th e ters. On 12 May the Court ruled that boycott continued, with only four the suspension was invalid, because it opposition members of parliament prevented the six suspended members attending. As a result parliament was from legitimately exercising their law- adjourned until 7 May. On 7 May ful duties and responsibilities as mem- there was full attendance in parlia- bers of parliament. Additionally, their ment. Following opening formalities having being given no opportunity to the Speaker proceeded to suspend six speak infringed various constitution- government members of parliament, ally enshrined human rights. The clo- including Prime Minister Edward sure of the First Extraordinary Session Natapei and Deputy Prime Minister of Parliament was also ruled to be Serge Vohor. The Speaker’s stated invalid, as parliament was inquorate reason for the suspension was that the and various other constitutional earlier petitions to the Supreme Court provisions were also breached. Chief were breaches of the Standing Orders Justice Lunabeck further ordered the of Parliament. At no time were the Speaker to reconvene parliament on six given an opportunity to speak or the morning of 14 May to continue question points of order. The six sus- the First Extraordinary Session (Nata- p olitical reviews • melane s i a 465 pei & Ors v Tari & Ors [Reasons for session at the time of the arrest and it Judgment], 2001; Natapei & Ors v was therefore unconstitutional (TP, 1 Tari & Ors [Orders], 2001). Dec 20 0 1 ). On 29 October a chal- The Speaker, however, chose to lenge to the decision of 12 May was ignore this order, and signed a state- heard and dismissed by the Court of ment to this effect. Early on Tuesday Appeal (Tari & Ors v Natapei & Or s , mo rning, 15 Ma y, he was arrested and 2001). charged with making a seditious state- One of the first acts of the new ment. First Deputy Speaker Irene government was to sever relations Bongnaim and Second Deputy Speaker with Ghosh. His diplomatic titles were Henry Iauko were also arrested and canceled and he was requested to sur- charged with complicity in making a render his diplomatic passport and the se d i t i o us st a t e m e n t .P a r l i a m e nt sat th a t four passports issued to staff members da y, but only after a wo r k er bro ke in t o at his office in Bangkok. The ruby, the parliament building, as Paul Ren however, remained in Vanuatu (TP, Tari refused to release the keys. At 12 May 2001). this meeting Tari was relieved of the The remainder of the year has been position of Speaker and former Prime fairly quiet, although there have been Minister Donald Kalpokas was voted some incidents of note. More prison- in to take his place. This left the gov- ers were released as part of Indepen- ernment with twenty-six members, dence celebrations, despite public out- compared to the opposition with cries over the practice following an twenty-five members (TP, 16 May incident last year when a released 2001). While there were some doubts prisoner was responsible for the kill- whether the government could survive ing of a man (TP, 1 July 2001). The with such a slim majority, an do no c c a- commencement of the Customary sion Sope did discuss the tabling of a Land Tribunal Act on 10 December no-confidence motion (TP, 1 Sept, 13 marks the culmination of a review of Dec 2001), this government remained land administration begun in early intact for the rest of the year. 2000. The object of the act is to pro- Various legal issues and challenges vide for a system based on custom to from these events continued through- resolve disputes about customary land. out the year, although they ultimately Although Vanuatu’s land all reverted had little impact on the government. to customary ownership at the time of The sedition charges were finally Independence, there has never been an quashed by the Supreme Court in effective procedure or administrative November because of a legal techni- body for handling disputes. By estab- cality: Article 27 (2) of the Constitu- lishing a number of land tribunals, tion prevents any member of parlia- each covering small “custom areas” ment from being arrested or with largely homogeneous customs, prosecuted during a session. As the this act will hopefully address what Su p reme Court had ruled that the clo- has been a significant difficulty with su re of the First Extraordinary Session the law and land administration in of Parliament on 7 May was invalid Vanuatu. and of no effect, parliament was in It has also been good to note that 466 the contemporary pacific • fall 2002 dishonest behavior among politicians contained in public reports were and within the public service is begin- ignored. The original hearings were ning to result in criminal pros e c u t i o n s . interrupted by attempts to repeal the In the middle of the year Deputy Prin- Ombudsman’s Act 1995, and by vari- cipal Immigration Officer John Wai ous other attacks on the ombudsman was found guilty of accepting a bribe of the time. Eventually the 1995 act to process residency forms. He was was repealed and the new act, which jailed for the offense for three months commenced in 19 9 9 , does not give the (TP, 4 Aug 20 0 1 ). In November, Ba r a k ombudsman any powers of enforce- Sope was charged with forgery related ment. This action is therefore an to two government bank guarantees anachronism, but is nonetheless wel- signed when he was prime minister. come as an attempt to make Van u a t u ’s One of these guarantees is for u s$18 politicians accountable for abuses of million and the other for u s$5 mil- power. lion. Ghosh, whose name had been a n i ta jow i t t mentioned in connection with the guarantees, has denied any involve- ment. An Australian, Edmond Gallea, Re f e re n c e s is being investigated with regard to this matter. Gallea, who has appar- Jones, Marc Neil. 2002. Personal commu- ently been given a Vanuatu diplomatic nication, 1 Feb. passport, has been involved in a large Korman v The Ombudsman. Civ. App. # cattle deal in Santo, the details of 23 2001. Unreported, Court of Appeal of which are still somewhat unclear Vanuatu. 2001. (TP, 17 Nov 20 0 1 ).S o p eisn os t r a n g e r Natapei & Ors v Tari (Contempt). Unre- to dubious bank guarantee dealings, ported, Supreme Court of Vanuatu, C.C.# having been implicated in ombuds- 49 2001. 13 April 2001. man’s reports in relation to bank Natapei & Ors v Tari No 1. Unreported, guarantees worth us$100 million Supreme Court of Vanuatu, C.C.# 35 given to Peter Swanson in 1996 2001. 6 April 2001. (Vanuatu Ombudsman 2001). The Natapei & Ors v Tari No 2. Unreported, preliminary hearing in this matter Supreme Court of Vanuatu, C.C.# 35 is set for February 2002. 2001. 12 April 2001. Finally, the ombudsman has been permitted to continue an action com- Natapei & Ors v Tari & Ors (Orders). Unreported, Supreme Court of Vanuatu, menced in 1997 to recover ex gratia C.C.# 59 2001, 12 May 2001. payments and compensation payments made to various politicians in 1993 Natapei & Ors v Tari & Ors (Reasons for and 1994 (Korman v The Ombuds- Judgment). Unreported, Supreme Court of man, 2001). This proceeding was Vanuatu, C.C.# 59 2001. 12 May 2001. started by the previous ombudsman p i r, Pacific Islands Report. under the authority of the Ombuds-
TP, The Trading Post. Port Vila. Three edi- between President Habibie and a team tions per week. of a hundred Papuan representatives Vanuatu Ombudsman. 2001. Digest of alerted the government to the depth Public Reports 1996–2000. Prepared by of pro-independence sentiment in Edward R. Hill for the u n d p Governance Papua. This sentiment then found and Accountability Project (Van /97/0101) more public expression in the form and the Vanuatu Office of the Ombuds- of two mass meetings in Jayapura, a man. January. Convention or Musyawarah Besar in