Archive

Posts Tagged ‘media freedom’

Tomato seeks to silence PNG political blogger Namorong

July 13, 2017 Leave a comment

KEITH JACKSON

THE Waigani National Court has granted an order sought by electoral commissioner Patilias ‘Tomato’ Gamato (pictured) against the celebrated Papua New Guinean writer, blogger, commentator and social justice fighter Martyn Namorong.

The order was granted by justice Collin Mikail in response to an urgent application by Gamato’s lawyer.

It sought to ban what were termed “defamatory remarks” about Gamato by Namorong.

It was reported the case arose “from alleged defamatory remarks the blogger made on social media associating commissioner Gamato to a fruit.”

That is, a tomato.

Namarong was not present for the hearing because court officials apparently could not locate the well-known public figure to serve documents.

Namorong responded by using social media to publish an image of himself gagged (pictured, with applause from his family).

And on Twitter, Namorong said: “Just heard I am being taken to court. I need a pro bono lawyer.”

To which PNG Attitude has offered to launch a public appeal to establish a fund to defend Namorong if the matter is pursued in court. Stand by, stout souls, on this one.

Mikail ruled the case must come before the court again on Monday 25 July, set to be known locally in some parts of the South Pacific as ‘International Tomato Day’.

Justice prevails with injunction on The Opposition rejected by court – however new legal threat looms

July 15, 2016 1 comment

carol kidu paga hill

Source: Media Stockade

The Supreme Court of New South Wales today released the full judgment of 8th July 2016, unequivocally dismissing former Papua New Guinean politician Dame Carol Kidu’s claim for a permanent injunction preventing filmmaker Hollie Fifer, Media Stockade and Beacon Films from screening the documentary The Opposition.

On 20 March 2016 Carol Kidu sought to exclude her appearance and dialogue in the film by seeking an injunction restraining the distribution of any visual or audio recording of herself or any summary, representation or description that has the effect of revealing that content. Her legal case was supported by the Paga Hill Development Company (PHDC).

The judgment reads:

When one views the extreme weaknesses of the Plaintiff’s (Dame Carol Kidu’s) claim that she did not know on and from 7 March 2012 that Ms Fifer was hoping to make a documentary for public exhibition rather than a student assignment (whatever it’s topic) the impression gained is that the Plaintiff is prepared, for her own benefit and that of PHDC to say anything to stop the footage taken of her by Ms Fifer being broadcast.

Download the full judgement (1.4MB) Kidu v Fifer

Director Hollie Fifer said, “we are relieved that justice has been served and that audiences around the world will be given the opportunity to see The Opposition and the important story of The Paga Hill Community.

“The Paga Hill Community is filing for damages in the PNG Courts for the loss of their homes and human rights violations. The Opposition is also their evidence base because most of their documents were destroyed during numerous demolition exercises that were carried out at Paga Hill,” said Ms. Fifer.

“This legal conflict has been an extremely stressful time and has disrupted release plans for The Opposition, nearly derailing the film and the important issues it speaks to,” said the film’s producer Rebecca Barry. “We are grateful that we now have the film back in its entirety.”

However, a new legal threat now looms in an attempt to further suppress the film. The court’s temporary injunction of footage featuring Carol Kidu, forced the filmmakers to screen a redacted version at Hot Docs International Film Festival in Toronto in May 2016. The redacted version of the film features narration over the censored footage by Australian actress Sarah Snook.

Just hours after the Hot Docs International Film Festival premiere of the film, independent production companies, Beacon Films and Media Stockade received further legal demands over the film.

Paga Hill Development Company (PHDC), CEO and Director Gudmundur Fridriksson, PHDC director Stanley Liria and former PHDC director George Hallit are demanding all further screenings of the film are immediately ceased due to claims of defamatory imputations.

This is the second legal action taken against the film. The new legal demands were issued within hours of the film’s first screening.

“It would seem that there are powerful forces who don’t want this film to be seen, but we believe that audiences should have the right to make up their own minds. This story is too important not to be told,” said Ms Barry.

Film Synopsis:

The Opposition tells the story of a David-and-Goliath battle over land in Papua New Guinea. It follows Joe Moses, one of the leaders of a four-generation strong settlement in Port Moresby who must save the community before they are evicted off their land. Battling it out in the courts, Joe may find their homes replaced with an international five-star hotel and marina being developed by the Paga Hill Development Company (PNG) Limited. The film highlights the massive gap between law and justice.

#TheOpposition #FreedomOfSpeech #LettheAudienceDecide

Visit the film website at: http://www.theoppositionfilm.com

Some key points from the Supreme Court of NSW Judgment:

The judge said that there were a number of factors which led him to have real concerns about the Plaintiff’s credibility including:

  • When faced with emails and SMS messages sent by Ms Fifer to the Plaintiff which contained material destructive of the Plaintiff’s contention that she thought Ms Fifer was only ever involved in a student assignment – the Plaintiff sought to assert that she had not properly read, or appreciated the content of those emails.
  • When conversations which were inconsistent with the Plaintiff’s case that she did not know that Ms Fifer was engaged in making a documentary and not simply making a student assignment were drawn to her attention – the Plaintiff asserted she said that she did not recall them.
  • The Plaintiff asserted in correspondence that she had never given written consent even though she had signed such a document (a release form) and had in July 2012 been reminded by Ms Fifer that she had.

Some of the findings of facts include:

  • That from 7 March 2012 the Plaintiff was fully aware that Ms Fifer would be taking footage for a documentary that Ms Fifer hoped she could broadcast to the public and that the Plaintiff was positive about that idea at least until July 2012 and as far as Ms Fifer knew until at least late 2013.
  • That by December 2013 the Plaintiff had in contemplation entering into a contract with PHDC using a company controlled by her and that in March 2014 her company entered into a contract with PHDC, by which it was to receive the equivalent of approximately $A178,000 (from which her company would need to make payments to subcontractors.)
  • That the Plaintiff invited Ms Fifer to film at Six Mile (the proposed resettlement site) and told her that PHDC would pay for that filming and that she offered to organize a UN Media award for Ms. Fifer.

Ms. Fifer, Media Stockade and Beacon Films were represented by Barrister Richard Potter, Junior Barrister Mark Maconachie and Solicitor Peter Bolam from legal firm Broadley Rees Hogan.

Carol Kidu loses court battle to suppress documentary about Paga Hill

July 15, 2016 Leave a comment

Source: Heath Aston, Sydney Morning Herald 

A documentary about the forced eviction of 3000 squatters from a shanty town in Port Moresby can be shown after a court threw out a legal challenge by one of the film’s central figures, Dame Carol Kidu, the Australia-born former opposition leader of Papua New Guinea.

The Opposition delves deep into the David v Goliath battle over a slice of Papua New Guinean paradise.

In a damning finding for the revered politician, Supreme Court Justice Nigel Rein has questioned Dame Carol’s credibility as a witness and dismissed her claim that she thought she was taking part in a school assignment and did not know that novice Australian filmmaker Hollie Fifer was producing a feature documentary to be shown all over the world.

The 77-minute documentary, The Opposition, revolves around the day in 2012 when an Australian-linked company sent in bulldozers, accompanied by armed PNG police, to raze the historic shanty town on Paga Hill.

carol kidu paga hill

Legal action … Dame Carol Kidu in a scene from the original version of The Opposition. Photo: Supplied

The development company is transforming the $300 million harbour front site into a hotel and marina precinct that could play host to the 2018 APEC leaders’ summit.

In 2012, Ms Fifer followed Dame Carol into Paga Hill, located in her electorate, as the politician pleaded unsuccessfully with police to stop people’s homes being bulldozed.

Footage shows her telling police: “This is not an eviction, it’s a demolition . . . why should some f—-g foreign company get our hill?”.

But by late 2013, the landscape had changed fundamentally.

Having retired from politics, Dame Carol, had been hired as a consultant to Paga Hill Development Company, owned by Australian-Icelandic businessman Gudmundur “Gummi” Fridriksson, a former chief executive of Noel Pearson’s Cape York Institute, who lives in Cairns.

Dame Carol later presented the company with a letter in which she formally resiled from her criticism of the eviction, saying: “In hindsight, Paga Hill Development Company’s efforts to achieve harmonious resettlement have been genuine”.

“Please accept this letter as my formal notification that I no longer stand by my 2012-2013 statements, which were based on the limited information at the time,” she wrote.

It came out in the hearing that Dame Carol had been paid $178,000 for work with Paga Hill and the company had paid $250,000 to run her case against Ms Fifer.

The case to permanently block the documentary being shown was based on Dame Carol’s claim she had agreed to be filmed as part of what she thought was a film school assignment rather than a commercial documentary venture.

Evidence was produced during the trial of multiple emails and text messages in which Ms Fifer told Dame Carol about seeking ABC funding and the politician also signed a release form that Ms Fifer needed to obtain film funding.

In a stinging verdict, Justice Rein noted: “When one views the extreme weaknesses of [Dame Carol’s] claim that she did not know on and from March 7, 2012, that Ms Fifer was hoping to make a documentary for public exhibition rather than a student assignment (whatever its topic) the impression gained is that [Dame Carol] is prepared, for her own benefit and that of PHDC, to say anything to stop the footage taken of her by Ms Fifer being broadcast.”

“In my view, the plaintiff’s assertion that she was not informed by Ms Fifer of her wish and intention to make a documentary quite unconnected with the student assignment … is without any foundation whatsoever,” Justice Rein found.

He said there were “several indications” that Dame Carol was angry with the documentary quite removed from the issue of her consent.

Those included that “she feels that some people will, or do, think that she ‘sold out’ her former constituents at Paga Hill by joining forces with PHDC and receiving payments for her service”, he noted.

In a statement issued by producers Media Stockade and Beacon Films, Ms Fifer said she was “relieved that justice has been served and that audiences around the world will be given the opportunity to see The Opposition“.

“The Paga Hill community is filing for damages in the PNG courts for the loss of their homes and human rights violations. The Oppositionis also their evidence base because most of their documents were destroyed during numerous demolition exercises that were carried out,” she said.

The documentary, which received funding from Screen Australia and Screen NSW, will be shown at a number of international film festivals.

On Thursday, Dame Carol said she was disappointed with the verdict and still believed the documentary only told “part of a much bigger story” and that the majority of settlers had agreed to move and accept a new block of land elsewhere.

“I was disappointed but I accept the decision of His Honour,” she said.

Read the full judgement: Kidu v Fifer (pdf file 1.4MB)

Media Intimidation, No Freedom

April 25, 2016 1 comment

Media-Intimidation
By Scott Waide – EMTV News

Another low point came yesterday when another Papua New Guinean journalist was threatened by senior members of the Royal Papua New Guinea Constabulary for maintaining contact with the suspended head of the Police Fraud Squad, Matthew Damaru.

The seasoned journalist working for a daily newspaper was threatened with arrest simply for doing his job and doing what is a fundamental part of his job – maintaining contact with an important source.

It is infuriating that we, as a country have allowed arms of government to stoop low to threaten those whose job it is to speak out for those who are unable.

It should be noted that over the last decade, there have been several attacks on journalists in PNG. Violent physical attacks affecting their families as well an legal intimidation by people who hold positions of power.

While the arrest did not eventuate, the fact that a threat was issued has struck at the heart of constitutional rights of freedom of the media and freedom of speech.

A free media able to challenge a government and those in positions of power and to hold them to account is vital for a vibrant democracy to thrive and to ride out political and economic turbulence a country many be going through.

A people cannot be silenced. The act to silence the masses by silencing the media is – as history has shown – always unsustainable and always short lived.

While Papua New Guineans have not protested violently, it does not mean a dissenting voice cannot be heard.

Silencing a journalist is so old school and reeks of 70s and 80s Latin American military dictatorships.

It is what is done by 21st century, Asian regimes that attempt to stifle and control public opinion in the age social media. It simply does not work.

PNG’s media reeling from Government crackdown on dissent

November 14, 2013 4 comments

Source: Radio New Zealand

Papua New Guinea’s media are reeling from a crackdown by the Government as observers say media freedom is “non-existent”.

Three senior journalists were recently demoted by the national broadcaster, and a media adviser of the Sustainable Development Programme was deported last week.

As a major investigation into corruption from within the Government continues, the Prime Minister is leading a campaign to silence its critics.

Alex Perrottet reports:

In this year’s Reporters Without Borders media report, PNG has dropped six places in the rankings. This month, three editors and producers with decades of experience were told by NBC management they would be continuing in the archives section. It came after reports on the government take-over of the Ok Tedi mine, and on allegations the prime minister is implicated in the allegedly corrupt payments to the arrested lawyer Paul Paraka. The Chair of the Pacific Freedom Forum, Titi Gabi, says there has been strong pressure from the Government.

“TITI GABI: There is concern from individuals about what this means and where the industry might be heading because you know, managers have become the editors and it’s just quite silly, it’s quite dangerous.”

Titi Gabi says the pressure is not just on the national broadcaster.

“TITI GABI: This particular TV company has got instructions from the top, saying you can’t run anything on us that’s negative because if you do, you know, we’ll force you to sell your shares, we won’t renew your licence. So what you have is managers interfering with news – how ridiculous is that?”

The PNG media council has long been accused of inaction. A former editor of the Post Courier newspaper, Bob Howarth, says there’s a deafening silence, apart from social media sites and some brave journalists.

“BOB HOWARTH: It appears that the PNG Media Council has virtually collapsed and there are several looming threats to press freedom in terms of journalists being downgraded in the National Brodacasting Corporation.”

“The managing director of NBC, Memafu Kapera, declined to speak, but issued a press release saying the veteran broadcasters breached editorial policy and failed to follow instructions. But in an email, he would not say which reports undermined NBC’s reputation of fairness and impartiality. Of the three demoted, he writes: Two have fully understood the requirements of their new assignments and they are happy to take on the new responsibilities. They cannot run to the industry for protection using media freedom as a front.

Before his arrest, Paul Paraka had filed an injunction against the media for reporting on the allegations he had received massive payments from the Government. Police say they are now investigating people in high places in the Government, and since the arrest of Mr Paraka, the Government itself has issued directives on reporting.

Last week the media advisor for the Sustainable Development Programme, Mark Davis, was arrested by heavily armed police and deported to Australia with nothing but his passport, after criticising the Government for taking over the fund. The Prime Minister, Peter O’Neil, defended the move, saying Mr Davis’ had breached his work permit by playing politics. Mr Davis defended his role.”

“MARK DAVIS: Of course it’s going to have a political element. I write media releases for the chairman and the chief executive criticising the government, I write advertisements criticising the government’s actions and calling into question its behaviour, that’s my job.”

Social media sites have been campaigning for the PM to explain himself.

Namah: Media freedom must prevail in PNG

May 1, 2013 4 comments

By Belden Namah MP via PNG Blog

I welcome Prime Minister Peter O’Neil’s decision to file a defamation suit against me. It is not surprising for Peter O’Neill to be reactive to issues that the Opposition has brought to light in recent times.

It is the traditional role of the Opposition to criticise, oppose, speculate and to even take pre-emptive measures on issues that concern the welfare of our people.

We are duty bound to keep the government and its leaders including the Prime Minister in check, so why is Mr O’Neill running to the courts when we are debating corruption at the National Government level?

I have as a leader tolerated wild, unfounded and even malicious allegations levelled against me in the media, yet, I have not sued the perpetrators or any media organisation for reporting such allegations. I have and will always respect media freedom and freedom of expression in this country and I expect Peter O’Neill and other leaders to do likewise.

My grave concern is that we now have a Prime Minister who is trying to control media freedom in our country. I ask the PM to leave media freedom to be practised without fear or favour in our democracy.

In this case the PM should leave EMTV alone. Let the media do its work and report without fear or favour.

The threat by the PM to cancel EMTV’s licence is an act of a dictator.

I want to appeal to all Papua New Guineans working in government organisations or state institutions that if you are threatened to facilitate corruption or have any information on corrupt practices, you must speak up. I am ready to receive and fight against corruption in this country including defending you against reprisal by government.

I call on the Ombudsman Commission and other watch dog organisations to do likewise and support whistle blowers for the good of our people, our country and our children’s future.

I am prepared to pay legal costs for EMTV journalist Scott Waide against the defamation suit by Peter O’Neil. And I guarantee the same for others who will speak out on the corruption of the PM, Ministers and other leaders.

RSF media freedom index warns on Fiji, PNG

January 30, 2013 2 comments

From Pacific Scoop via Reporters Sans Frontières & Pacific Media Watch

Threats to the media in the South Pacific should not be taken lightly in two Melanesian countries, says the Paris-based global press freedom advocacy group Reporters Sans Frontières.

Papua New Guinea has dropped six places to 41st in the latest RSF World Press Freedom Index with the security forces being “regularly involved in attacks on journalists”.

In Fiji, in spite of a 10-place rise to 107th – explained in part by the decline of other countries in this section of the index, news organisations are threatened under the Media Industry Development Decree with exorbitant fines, or even imprisonment, as in the case of a recently convicted editor of The Fiji Times.

Elsewhere in the South Pacific did not rate a mention in the report, which highlighted the “Burmese spring” in the Asia-Pacific region.

But among other Pacific Islands Forum countries, New Zealand rose five places to eighth and Australia climbed four places to 26th.