Anger builds over Nauru court shut out

Transcript

The government announced with great fanfare during its 50th anniversary celebrations in January that it was going to set up its own court and end the Australian link.

The President said such a move affirmed the island's sovereignty, independence and maturity.

The constitutional change is yet to go through parliament but that did not stop the Nauru government last December severing the treaty with Australia that allowed the island to use the Australian High Court.

It was done in secret and has only become widely known in recent days after unsuccessful attempts were made to appeal to the Australian court.

A former justice minister in Nauru says the government must review its decision.

Mathew Batsiua, who is one of 19 facing charges over an anti-government protest, says he is not sure whether the government's termination move is legal, but it is being called on to review or rescind it.

   "Seek parliamentary approval or sanctioning of its intentions through the passage of the constitutional amendment bills that will be debated on April 25th or after that date, and if they get the approval of the parliament to go ahead then they take steps to revoke the treaty. That's the normal way of doing things."

An Australian law academic says the loss of independent oversight on court decisions in Nauru is a major worry.

Macquarie University adjunct professor, George Newhouse, who also heads the National Justice Project, says it is a major concern for Nauruans, asylum seekers and refugees because very often appeals made to the Australian High Court have resulted in the decisions of the Nauru Supreme Court being overturned.

   "Certainly in the last 12 months the High Court had a 90% rate of overturning Nauruan court decisions, which is a very concerning statistic and if I was on Nauru I would be very concerned about losing the independent oversight that the Australian court provided."

A former president of Nauru, Sprent Dabwido, says Australia is 'complicit in a political prosecution'.

Mr Dabwido says the first impact of the change became apparent on Tuesday when three Nauruans wanting to appeal against their sentences were turned away from the Australian High Court registry in Sydney.

He says this places the three in a 'bizarre legal no man's land.'

He says the Australian government is complicit because the defence lawyers were not told the decision to end access had been made last December and that the registry staff 'had been instructed weeks ago not to accept any more Nauru appeals'.  

Mr Dabwido also says the Australian High Commission on Nauru has refused to speak on the issue, while the Foreign Minister Julie Bishop has publicly backed the move by the Nauru government.    

Australian solicitor Christian Hearn is one of a group of lawyers who have been representing the people charged over the anti-government protest nearly three years ago.

I asked him if he felt this move by the Nauru Government was an attempt to thwart their case.

   "We are representing three former MPs and 17 of their supporters who were charged with an event that arose during a protest against the government, so people will make their own judgements about what the motivations of the Nauruan government are, but there is an undeniable political aspect to this entire case."

Professor Newhouse says the governments of New Zealand and Australia have an obligation to point out to Nauru that what it is doing is anti-democratic and denying people basic legal rights.

   "And that democratic practices such as the right to protest be re-instated. I think as good neighbours in the Pacific both Australia and New Zealand have a duty to impress upon those in power in Nauru that what they are doing is anti-democratic and is denying basic legal rights to individuals on Nauru."

The director of the Pasifika Centre at Massey University, Malakai Koloamatangi, says, regardless of any political manoeuverings, Nauru's judiciary needs to have a proper appeal process in place and New Zealand and Australia must assume a role in helping this happen.

   "There needs to be that kind of structure in place if Nauru is to have some measure of rule of law operating, and if there isn't one - obviously there isn't - then Australia and New Zealand, they need to step up and assist in creating that or establishing that."

An official for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade says New Zealand has held concerns about rule of  law in Nauru for some time but that they will wait to see how the transition from the Australian appellate court will be managed.
 
Attempts to obtain a response from the Nauru government to these concerns have been unsuccessful.