Category: press freedom

  • By Kelvin Anthony, RNZ Pacific digital and social media journalist, and Koroi Hawkins, RNZ Pacific journalist and Pacific Waves presenter

    A Pacific journalism academic has warned proposed amendments to media laws in Papua New Guinea, if “ill-defined”, could mirror the harsh restrictions in Fiji.

    Prime Minister James Marape’s government is facing fierce opposition from local and regional journalists for attempting to fasttrack a new media development policy.

    The draft law has been described by media freedom advocates as “the thin edge of the web of state control”.

    PNG’s Information and Communications Technology (ICT) Department released the Draft Media Development Policy publicly on February 5. It aims “to outline the objectives and strategies for the use of media as a tool for development”.

    The department gave stakeholders less than two weeks to make submissions on the 15-page document, but after a backlash the ICT chief extended the consultation period by another week.

    “I recognise the sensitivity and importance of this reform exercise,” ICT Minister Timothy Masiu said after giving in to public criticism and extending the consultation period until February 24.

    Timothy Masiu
    ICT Minister Timothy Masiu . . . “I recognise the sensitivity and importance of this reform exercise” Photo: PNG govt/RNZ Pacific

    Masiu said he instructed the Information Department to “facilitate a workshop in partnership with key stakeholders”, adding that the Information Ministry “supports and encourages open dialogue” on the matter.

    “I reaffirm to the public that the government is committed to ensuring that this draft bill will serve its ultimate purpose,” he said.

    The new policy includes provisions on regulating the media industry and raising journalism standards in PNG, which has struggled for years due to lack of investment in the sector.

    But media leaders in PNG have expressed concerns, noting that while there are areas where government support is needed, the proposed regulation is not the solution.

    “The situation in PNG is a bit worrying if you see what happened in Fiji, even though the PNG Information Department has denied any ulterior motives,” University of the South Pacific head of journalism, Associate Professor Shailendra Singh, told RNZ Pacific.

    “There are concerns in PNG. Prominent journalists are worried that the proposed act could be the thin edge of the wedge of state media control, as in Fiji,” Dr Singh said, in reaction to Masiu’s guarantee that the policy is for the benefit of media organisations and journalists.

    “If you look at the Fiji situation, the Media Act was implemented in the name of democratising the media, ironically, and also improving professional standards.”

    Dr Singh said this is what is also being said by the PNG government but “in Fiji the Media Act has been a disaster for media rights”.

    Shailendra Singh
    USP’s Associate Professor Shailendra Singh . . . “In Fiji the Media Act has been a disaster for media rights.” Image: RNZ Pacific

    “Various reports blame the Fiji Media Act for a chilling effect on journalism and they also hold the Act responsible for instilling self-censorship in the Fiji media sector,” he said.

    “If the PNG media policy provisions are ill-defined, as the Fiji Media Act was, and if it has harsh punitive measures, it could also result in a chilling effect on journalism and this in turn could have major implications for democracy and freedom of speech in PNG.”

    The Media Industry Development Act (MIDA) 2010 and its implementation meant that Fiji was ranked 102nd out of 180 countries by Reporters without Borders in 2022.

    Earlier this month Fiji’s Attorney-General Siromi Turaga publicly apologised to journalists for the harassment and abuse they endured during the Bainimarama government’s reign.

    But Dr Singh said PNG appeared to have been “emboldened” by the Fijian experience.

    Media freedom a Pacific-wide issue
    He said other Pacific leaders had also threatened to introduce similar legislation and “this is a major concern”.

    “Fiji and PNG are the two biggest countries in the Pacific [which] often set trends in the region, for better or for worse. The question that comes to mind is whether countries like Solomon Islands or Vanuatu will follow suit? [Because] over the years and even recently, the leaders of these two countries have also threatened the news media.”

    A major study co-authored by the USP academic, which surveyed more than 200 journalists in nine countries and was published in Pacific Journalism Review in 2021, revealed that “Pacific journalists are among the youngest, most inexperienced and least qualified in the world”.

    Dr Singh warned the research showed that legislation alone would not result in any significant improvements to journalism standards in Pacific countries, which is why committing money in training and development was crucial.

    “Training and development are an important component of the Fiji Media Act. However, our analysis found zero dollars was invested by the Fiji government in training and development,” he said.

    “If we are to take any lessons from Fiji, and if the PNG government is serious about standards, it needs to invest at least some of its own money in this venture of improving journalism.”

    This is a sentiment shared by Media Council of PNG president, Neville Choi, who said: “If the concern is poor journalism, then the solution is more investment in schools of journalism at tertiary institutions, this will also improve diversity and pluralism in the quality of journalism.

    “We need newsrooms with access to training in media ethics and legal protection from harassment,” Choi added.

    Dr Singh said that without proper financial backing in the media sector “there is unlikely to be any improvement in standards, [but] just a cowered down or subdued media [which] is not in PNG’s public interest, or the national interest, given the levels of corruption in the country.”

    APMN calls for ‘urgent rethink’
    The publisher of the Pacific Journalism Review, the Asia Pacific Media Network, has also condemned the move, calling for an “urgent rethink” of the draft media policy.

    The group is proposing for the communications ministry to “immediately discard the proposed policy of legislating the PNG Media Council and regulating journalists and media which would seriously undermine media freedom in Papua New Guinea”.

    The network also cited the 1999 Melanesian Media Declaration as a guideline for Pacific media councils and said the draft PNG policy was ignoring “established norms” for media freedom.

    The statement was co-signed by the APMN chair Dr Heather Devere; deputy chair Dr David Robie, a retired professor of Pacific journalism and author, and founding director of the Pacific Media Centre; and Pacific Journalism Review editor Dr Philip Cass, who was born in PNG and worked on the Times of Papua New Guinea and Wantok newspapers.

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

  • ANALYSIS: By Mong Palatino

    Various stakeholders have warned that the draft National Media Development Policy released by Papua New Guinea’s Department of Information and Communications Technology (DICT) on February 5 could undermine media freedom if approved by the government.

    The DICT asked stakeholders to share their input within 12 days, but this was extended for another week after Papua New Guinea’s Community Coalition Against Corruption (CCAC) criticised the short period for the consultation process.

    The draft policy lays the framework “for the use of media as a tool for development.” The state emphasised that “it includes provisions for the regulation of media, ensuring press freedom and the protection of journalists, and promoting media literacy among the population.”

    A controversial proposal in the draft is to transform the PNG Media Council into a body “that will have legal mandate that covers an effective and enforceable regulatory framework.”

    According to the draft policy, the new PNG Media Council “will ensure press freedom, protect journalists, and promote ethical standards in the media sector”.

    At present, the council is a nonprofit group promoting media freedom and the welfare of journalists. The draft recognises that “its primary role has been to promote ethical journalism and to support journalists in the pursuit of their professional duties.

    The Media Council of PNG working with Transparency International PNG in 2021.
    The Media Council of PNG working with Transparency International PNG in 2021 . . . community collaboration. Image: TI-PNG/FB

    Journalist Scott Waide underscored that “over three decades, its role has shifted to being a representative body for media professionals and a voice for media freedom.” He pointed out the implications of re-establishing the council with a broad mandate as defined in the draft policy, suggesting that the government hopes to gain control over the media sphere:

    The government’s intention to impose greater control over aspects of the media, including the MCPNG [Media Council], is ringing alarm bells through the region. This is to be done by re-establishing the council through the enactment of legislation. The policy envisages the council as a regulatory agency with licensing authority over journalists.

    The regulatory framework proposed for the new media council includes licensing for journalists. Licensing is one of the biggest red flags that screams of government control.

    The draft policy proposes to grant the media council powers to offer licences and accreditation to journalists and media outlets, handle complaints and sanctions, among other powers:

    Licensing and Accreditation: Requirements for media outlets and journalists to be licensed or accredited, including provisions for renewing licenses and for revoking licenses in cases of violations.

    Complaints and Sanctions: Mechanisms for the resolution of complaints against the media, including procedures for investigations and sanctions for breaches of ethical standards.

    Media Council PNG president Neville Choi, who is also co-chair of CCAC, reminded authorities of another way to improve journalism in the country:

    If the concern is poor journalism, then the solution is more investment in schools of journalism at tertiary institutions, this will also increase diversity and pluralism in the quality of journalism.

    We need newsrooms with access to trainings on media ethics and legal protection from harassment.

    Writer Fraser Liu rejected the proposed state regulation and urged authorities to review current legal options that can be used to deal with media reporting that violates the country’s laws.

    My view is the government should stay away from the fourth estate completely. This is a sinister move with obvious intentions.

    Government should not be regulating the media in any form as it infringes on rights to free speech. It can run media organisations to bring its own message out, but it should never exert control over the entire industry.

    Media agencies and agents must be left alone to their own ends, being free from cohesion of any sort, and if media reporting does in fact raise any legal issues like defamation, then the courts are the avenue for resolution. There is no shortage in Common law of such case precedent.

    Transparency International PNG chair Peter Aitsi added that disinformation on social media should be addressed without undermining free speech.

    While the abuse of social media platforms is a new issue that is given as justification for the media policy, there are already existing laws that address the issue without undermining media freedom.

    News about the draft policy also alarmed media groups in the region. The New Zealand-based Asia Pacific Media Network Inc. said that “media must be free to speak truth to power in the public interest not the politicians’ interest.” Adding:

    In our view, the ministry is misguided in seeking to legislate for a codified PNG Media Council which flies in the face of global norms for self-regulatory media councils and this development would have the potential to dangerously undermine media freedom in Papua New Guinea.

    Australia’s media union also tweeted their concern:

    The International Federation of Journalists and Reporters Without Borders asked the government to withdraw regulations that restrict independent journalism. Susan Merrell, a lecturer at Sydney University on cultural studies and communication, commented that “instead of the media being the government’s watchdog, the government is trying to become the media’s watchdog.”

    Reporters Without Borders on PNG media
    Reporters Without Borders on PNG . . . “The policy’s most alarming measures concern the Media Council, which is currently a non-governmental entity representing media professionals.” Image: RSF screenshot APR

    The government insisted that it is committed to upholding media freedom.

    Scott Waide sums up the state of media in the country:

    While the PNG media has been resilient in the face of many challenges, journalists who have chosen to cover issues of national importance have been targeted with pressure coming directly from within government circles.

    Global Voices has previously reported about the suspension of a journalist in Papua New Guinea’s EMTV news, the new rule prohibiting reporters to directly contact the prime minister, and a stricter regulation for foreign correspondents. Mong Palatino is regional editor for Southeast Asia of Global Voices, an activist and former two-term member of the Philippine House of Representatives. Republished under a Creative Commons licence.

  • By Rebecca Kuku in Port Moresby

    Enga Governor Sir Peter Ipatas has told the Papua New Guinean government and national leaders to allow the media to carry out its role “unfettered” and accept public criticism.

    “You are in a public office. As leaders, we must be prepared for anything. If they write negative reports, let’s learn to build on criticisms,” Sir Peter said.

    He was responding to a government statement last week saying that a proposed national media development policy circulated to all stakeholders for comment was not meant to control the media or the freedom of expression.

    Sir Peter said: “The government needs to understand that the office we hold is a public office, and we are answerable to the people. The media’s job is to hold us accountable.”

    He questioned why the government was wasting money and time on a draft media policy when it had bigger issues to worry about.

    Detrimental for democracy
    Sir Peter warned that the Constitution provided for a free media and any attempt to put restrictions on that crucial role would be detrimental to a democratic society.

    “Do not look at today only. Look at the future too because you will not be in office forever,” he said.

    “There are also avenues provided for in the Constitution to address issues.

    “If you have an issue with a news report, take it to court and get it sorted out there.

    “I’ve been a politician for over 20 years. I don’t care what the media reports — positive news or negative news so long as it’s not [lies],” he said.

    “It is the media’s job to report facts as it is. Let the media do its job and let’s do our job.”

    Rebecca Kuku is a reporter with The National. Republished with permission.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • The Paris-based media freedom watchdog said in a statement that “in what may be an example of the road to hell being paved with good intentions, the government has produced a ‘Draft National Media Development Policy’ with the declared aim of turning the media into “a tool for development” including “the promotion of democracy, good governance, human rights, and social and economic development.”

    Daniel Bastard, head of RSF’s Asia-Pacific desk, said: “It is entirely commendable for a democracy to want to encourage the development of a healthy and dynamic news and information environment.

    “But, as it stands, the policy proposed by Port Moresby clearly endangers the independence of the media by establishing government control over their work.

    “We call on Information and Communication Technology Minister Timothy Masiu to abandon this proposal and start again from scratch by organising a real consultation and by providing proper safeguards for journalistic independence.”

    The policy’s most alarming measures concern the Media Council of PNG, which is currently a non-governmental entity representing media professionals, said RSF.

    It would be turned into a judicial commission with the power to determine who should or should not be regarded as a journalist, to issue a code of ethics and to impose sanctions on journalists who stray from it.

    ‘Regulatory government body’
    “These are disproportionate powers, especially as there is no provision for ensuring the independence of those appointed as the new Media Council’s members,” the RSF statement said.

    “There is also no provision for journalists and media outlets to challenge or appeal against its decisions.”

    RSF also quoted from a recent DevPolicy article by Scott Waide, a blogger, media producer and analyst who was formerly a deputy regional head of news at EMTV News based at Lae:

    “The policy envisages the media council as a regulatory and licensing body for journalists, which means, hypothetically, that it could penalise journalists if they present a narrative that is not in favour of the government.”

    “The re-invented media council would be nothing more than a regulatory government body.”

    The government’s new policy seemed all the more ill-considered, said RSF, given that, in the event of disputes with the media, there were already avenues for redress through the courts under the 1962 Defamation Act and 2016 Cybercrime Code Act.

    Several journalists have been subjected to covert pressure from the government in recent years.

    They include Waide himself, who was suspended from his EMTV News job in November 2018 over a story suggesting that the government had misused public funds by purchasing luxury cars.

    EMTV’s then news chief Sincha Dimara suffered the same fate in February 2022 after three news stories annoyed a government minister.

  • ANALYSIS: By Scott Waide in Port Moresby

    The new media development policy being proposed by the Papua New Guinea Communications Minister, Timothy Masiu, could lead to more government control over the country’s relatively free media.

    The new policy suggests a series of changes including legislative amendments. But media and stakeholders are not being given enough time to examine the details and study the long-term implications of the policy.

    The initial deadline for feedback has been extended by another seven days from today. However, the Media Council of PNG (MCPNG) has requested a consultation forum with the government, as it seeks wider input from research organisations, academia and regional partners.

    The government’s intention to impose greater control over aspects of the media, including the MCPNG, is ringing alarm bells through the region. This is to be done by re-establishing the council through the enactment of legislation.

    The policy envisages the council as a regulatory agency with licensing authority over journalists.

    The MCPNG was established in 1989 as a non-profit organisation representing the interests of media organisations. Apart from a brief period in the earlier part of its existence, it has largely been unfunded.

    Over three decades, its role has shifted to being a representative body for media professionals and a voice for media freedom.

    The president of the council, Neville Choi, says there are aspects of the media that need government support. These include protection and training of journalists. However, the media is best left as a self-regulating industry.

    According to Choi:

    “Media self-regulation is when media professionals set up voluntary editorial guidelines and abide by them in a learning process open to the public. By doing this, independent media accept their share of responsibility for the quality of public discourse in the country, while preserving their editorial autonomy in shaping it. The MCPNG was set up with this sole intent.

    “It is not censorship, and not even self-censorship. It is about establishing minimum principles on ethics, accuracy, personal rights while preserving editorial freedom on what to report, and what opinions to express.

    The regulatory framework proposed for the new media council includes licensing for journalists. Licensing is one of the biggest red flags that screams of government control.

    Communications Minister Timothy Masiu
    Communications Minister Timothy Masiu . . . Licensing is one of the biggest red flags that screams of government control. Image: PNG govt

    While the PNG media has been resilient in the face of many challenges, journalists who have chosen to cover issues of national importance have been targeted with pressure coming directly from within government circles.

    In 2004, the National Broadcasting Corporation’s head of news and current affairs, Joseph Ealedona, was suspended for a series of stories on the military and the government. The managing director of the government broadcaster issued the notice of suspension.

    In 2019, Neville Choi, then head of news for EMTV, was sacked for disobeying orders not to run a story of a military protest outside the Prime Minister’s office in Port Moresby. Choi was later reinstated following intense public pressure and a strike by all EMTV journalists and news production staff.

    Two years later, a similar scenario played out when 24 staff and EMTV’s head of news were sacked for protesting against political interference in the newsroom.

    For many within the industry, licensing just gives the government better tools to penalise journalists who present an unfavourable narrative.

    On paper, the government appears to be trying to remedy the desperately ailing journalism standards in PNG. But the attempt is not convincing enough for many.

    Fraser Liu, an accountant by profession and an outspoken observer of national issues, says the courts provide enough of an avenue for redress if there are grievances and that an additional layer of control is not needed.

    Liu said: “Media agencies and agents must be left alone to their own ends, being free from coercion of any sort, and if media reporting does in fact raise any legal issues like defamation, then the courts are the avenue for resolution. There is no shortage in common law of such case precedent. This is clearly an act by government to control media and effectively free speech.

    “Government cannot self-appoint itself as a referee for free speech. Free speech is covered under our Constitution and the courts protect this basic right. The policy talks about protection of reporters’ rights. Again, what is this? They already have rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

    Coming back to poor journalism standards, Minister Masiu, a former broadcast journalist himself, has been challenged on many occasions to increase investment into PNG’s journalism schools. It is a challenge he has not yet taken up despite the abundant rhetoric about the need for improvement.

    The energy of government should be put into fixing the root problem contributing to the poor quality of the media: poor standards of university education.

    Scott Waide is a journalist based in Lae, Papua New Guinea. He is the former deputy regional head of news for EMTV and has worked in the media for 24 years. This article was first published on the DevPolicy Blog and is republished here under a Creative Commons licence.

  • PNG Post-Courier

    An anti-corruption NGO in Papua New Guinea has criticised the haste with which the government is conducting consultation on a draft National Media Development Policy that could undermine media freedom.

    The Community Coalition Against Corruption (CCAC) has called on the Department of Information and Communication Technologies to extend the time and breadth of consultation on this proposed national policy.

    “Extended and broader consultation is required for this as media freedoms are vital to our democracy,” the coalition said in a statement.

    Minister for Information and Communication Technology Timothy Masiu responded quickly and extended the deadline by one week from February 20.

    In his capacity as co-chair of the coalition, Transparency International PNG chair Peter Aitsi said: “The two weeks given for consultation is not sufficient to consider the national and societal impact of this media policy and whether it is actually required.

    “For instance, while the abuse of social media platforms is a new issue that is given as justification for the media policy, there are already existing laws that address the issue without undermining media freedom.

    “This month, when we commemorate the legacy of the Grand Chief Sir Michael Thomas Somare, we recall his personal stance when Prime Minister opposing the regulation of PNG’s media when a similar bill was proposed in 2003.”

    Editorial independence ‘cornerstone’
    Another senior media spokesperson also said the government had failed to provide adequate time and conduct meaningful consultation over the draft National Media Development Policy 2023.

    The draft PNG media policy
    The draft PNG National Media Development Policy 2023.

    Media Council PNG president Neville Choi said in his capacity as co-chair of the coalition: “The editorial independence of newsrooms is a cornerstone of a functional democracy.

    “Undermining media freedom, diminishes the role of the media as the mouthpiece of the people, holding those in power to account.

    “Failure by the government to provide adequate time and conduct meaningful consultation, will ultimately undermine confidence in the government and the country, both domestically and abroad.

    “If the concern is poor journalism, then the solution is more investment in schools of journalism at tertiary institutions, this will also increase diversity and pluralism in the quality of journalism.

    “We need newsrooms with access to trainings on media ethics and legal protection from harassment.”

    The media policy was initially released by the Department of ICT on February 5 and the public was only given 12 days to comment on the document, with the original deadline for feedback being February 17.

    The policy includes provisions for the regulation of media and establishment of a Government Information Risk Management (GIRM) Division within the Department of ICT to implement measures to prevent the unauthorised access to “sensitive information”.

    The coalition is a network of organisations that come together to discuss and make recommendations on national governance issues. It is currently co-chaired by Transparency International PNG and the Media Council.

    Republished with permission.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • The National in Port Moresby

    Papua New Guinea’s new media draft policy would put a stop to reporting news not regarded as “positive” for the country’s image, says former PNG Media Council director Bob Howarth.

    Howarth, who was director from 2001-2005, said that the national government needed to seriously look at the way the media scene in Timor-Leste had thrived from next to nothing in 1999 when its violent emergence from foreign occupation became full democracy.

    “The small nation has the highest press freedom ranking in the region and has a very active press council supported by the UNDP [United Nations Development Programme] and several foreign NGOs,” said Howarth, who as well as advising Timor-Leste media has helped editorial staff on several newspapers.

    “[The Timor-Leste Press Council] has a staff of 35 and runs professional training for local journalists in close co-operation with university journalism schools.”

    “Visiting foreign reporters don’t need special visas in case they write about ‘non-positive’ issues like witchcraft murders, tribal warfare corruption or unsold Maseratis.”

    The National Media Development Policy has been public since February 5 and already it has been soundly criticised for “hasty” consultations on the draft law and a tight deadlne for submissions.

    University input
    Howarth said that with easier online meetings, thanks to Zoom PNG’s new look, the media council could include input from the University of Papua New Guinea (UPNG) and Divine Word journalism schools plus a voice from critical regions such as Bougainville, Western Highlands and Goroka.

    “And Timorese journalists can easily contact their President, José Ramos-Horta, a staunch defender of press freedom and media diversity, without going through government spin doctors,” he said.

    Howarth said the PNG government could look into the media scene in Timor-Leste to do their media policy.

    Meanwhile, in Brisbane the Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance (MEAA) — Australia’s main union representing journalists — has passed a resolution endorsing support for the PNG Media Council.

    “MEAA supports the [MCPNG] concerns about the possible impact of the government’s draft National Media Development Policy on media freedom; regulation of access to information; and the restructuring of the national broadcaster, including proposed reduction in government funding,” said the MEAA resolution.

    Republished with permission.

    The MEAA resolution supporting the PNG Media Council over the draft policy
    The MEAA resolution supporting the PNG Media Council over the draft policy. Image: MEAA/Twitter
  • By Rebecca Kuku

    Media is not a tool of government to promote its agenda — however altruistic that agenda may be, says media academic Dr Susan Merrell of Sydney University.

    Dr Merrell said this in response to the Papua New Guinea government’s new draft national media development policy.

    The deadline for submissions has been pushed back a week from 20 February 2023 after protests that the consultation on such an important policy has been “too rushed”.

    Dr Merrell said the first two paragraphs (under “purpose”) of the media policy draft dated 5 February 2023 which stated, “the purpose of this policy is to outline the objectives and strategies for the use of media as a tool for development, such as the promotion of democracy, good governance, human rights, and social and economic development,” said it all.

    “The only media doing that, should be their own (government) public relations department.

    “Newspapers are not to be mixed with public relations departments.

    “In fact, the role of media, acting as the Fourth Estate is to keep the government honest,” she said.

    Dr Merrell said that according to the draft, if approved, mainstream media would not be able to publish anything regarded as “anti-government” or anything “detrimental” to the country’s good image.

    “Instead of the media being the government’s watchdog, the government is trying to become the media’s watchdog,” she said.

    “What the policy maker must understand is that the media is concerned with the ‘public’ interest not the ‘national’ interest.

    “It’s not the same thing. For example: the Australian media reported on the Australian government spying on Timor-Leste and Indonesia although this story and revelation was embarrassing and not in the national interest.

    “It was in the public’s interest to know this was how their government had conducted itself.”

    Rebecca Kuku is a reporter for The National. Republished with permission.

  • By Lice Movono in Suva

    Veteran Fijian journalist Netani Rika and his wife were resting in their living room when he was suddenly woken, startled by the sound of smashed glass. “I got up, I slipped on the wet surface,” he recalls.

    He turned on the lights and a bottle and wick were spread across the floor. It was one of the many acts of violence and intimidation he endured after the 2006 military coup.

    Back then, Rika was the manager of news and current affairs at Fiji Television.

    No news at 6pm, no news at 10pm
    Back then, Rika was the manager of news and current affairs at Fiji Television.

    He vividly remembers the time his car was smashed with golf clubs by two unknown men — one he would later identify as a member of the military — and the day he was locked up at a military camp.

    “We were monitoring the situation . . .  once the takeover happened, there was a knock at the door and we had some soldiers present themselves,” he said.

    “We were told they were there for our protection but our CEO at the time, Ken Clark, said ‘well if you’re here to protect us, then you can stand at the gate’.

    “They said, ‘no, we are here to be in the newsroom, and we want to see what goes to air. We also have a list of people you cannot speak to … ministers, detectives’.”

    Rika remembered denying their request and publishing a notice on behalf of Fiji TV News that said it would “not broadcast tonight due to censorship”, promising to return to air when they were able to “broadcast the news in a manner which is free and fair”.

    “There was no news at six, there was no news at 10, it was a decision made by the newsroom.”

    Organisations like Human Rights Watch have repeatedly criticised Voreqe Bainimarama, who installed himself as prime minister during the 2006 coup, for his attacks on government critics, the press and the freedom of its citizens.

    Pacific Beat media freedom in Fiji
    Fiji’s media veterans recount intimidation under the former FijiFirst government . . . they hope the new leaders will reinstall press freedom. Image: ABC screenshot

    Fear and intimidation
    Rika reported incidents of violence to Fiji police, but he said detectives told him his complaints would not go far.

    “There was a series of letters to the editor which I suppose you could say were anti-government. Shortly after … the now-honourable leader of the opposition (Voreqe Bainimarama) called, he swore at me in the Fijian iTaukei language … a short time later I saw a vehicle come into our street,” he said.

    “The next time (the attackers) came over the fence, broke a wooden louvre and threw one (explosive) inside the house.”

    The ABC contacted Bainimarama’s Fiji First party and Fiji police for comment, but has not received a response.

    The following year, Rika left his job to become the editor-in-chief at The Fiji Times, the country’s leading independent newspaper. With the publication relying on the government’s advertising to remain viable, Rika said the government put pressure on the paper’s owners.

    “The government took away Fiji Times’ advertising, did all sorts of things in order to bring it into line with its propaganda that Fiji was OK, there was no more corruption.”

    Rika said the government also sought to remove the employment rights of News Limited, which owned The Fiji Times.

    “The media laws were changed so that you could not have more than 5 percent overseas ownership,” Rika said.

    Rika, and his deputy Sophie Foster — now an Australian national — lost their jobs after the Media Act 2011 was passed, banning foreign ownership of Fijian media organisations.

    ‘A chilling law’
    The new law put in place several regulations over journalists’ work, including restrictions on reporting of government activities.

    In May last year, Fijian Media Association secretary Stanley Simpson called for a review of the “harsh penalties” that can be imposed by the authority that enforces the act.

    Penalties include up to F$100,000 (NZ$75,00) in fines or two years’ imprisonment for news organisations for publishing content that is considered a breach of public or national interest. Simpson said some sections were “too excessive and designed to be vindictive and punish the media rather that encourage better reporting standards and be corrective”.

    Media veterans hope the controversial act will be changed, or removed entirely, to protect press freedom.

    Retired journalism professor Dr David Robie, now editor of Asia Pacific Report, taught many of the Pacific journalists who head up Fijian newsrooms today, but some of his earlier research focused on the impact of the Media Act.

    Dr Robie said from the outset, the legislation was widely condemned by media freedom organisations around the world for being “very punitive and draconian”.

    “It is a chilling law, making restrictions to media and making it extremely difficult for journalists to act because … the journalists in Fiji constantly have that shadow hanging over them.”

    In the years after Fijian independence in 1970, Dr Robie said Fiji’s “vigorous” media sector “was a shining light in the whole of the Pacific and in developing countries”.

    “That was lost … under that particular law and many of the younger journalists have never known what it is to be in a country with a truly free media.”

    ‘We’re so rich in stories’
    Last month, the newly-elected government said work was underway to change media laws.

    “We’re going to ensure (journalists) have freedom to broadcast and to impart knowledge and information to members of the public,” Fiji’s new Attorney-General Siromi Turaga said.

    “The coalition government is going to provide a different approach, a truly democratic way of dealing with media freedom.” But Dr Robie said he believed the only way forward was to remove the Media Act altogether.

    “I’m a bit sceptical about this notion that we can replace it with friendly legislation. That’s sounds like a slippery slope to me,” he said.

    “I’d have to say that self-regulation is pretty much the best way to go.”

    Reporters Without Borders ranked Fiji at 102 out of 180 countries in terms of press freedom, falling by 47 places compared to its 2021 rankings.

    Samantha Magick was the news director at Fiji radio station FM96, but left after the 2000 coup and returned three years ago to edit Islands Business International, a regional news magazine.

    “When I came back, there wasn’t the same robustness of discussion and debate, we (previously) had powerful panel programs and talkback and there wasn’t a lot of that happening,” she said.

    “Part of that was a reflection of the legislation and its impact on the way people worked but it was often very difficult to get both sides of a story because of the way newsmakers tried to control their messaging … which I thought was really unfortunate.”

    Magick said less restrictive media laws might encourage journalists to push the boundaries, while mid-career reporters would be more creative and more courageous.

    “I also hope it will mean more people stay in the profession because we have this enormous problem with people coming, doing a couple of years and then going … for mainly financial reasons.”

    She lamented the fact that “resource intensive” investigative journalism had fallen by the wayside but hoped to see “a sort of reinvigoration of the profession in general.”

    “We’re so rich in stories … I’d love to see more collaboration across news organisations or among journalists and freelancers,” she said.

    Lice Movono is a Fijian reporter for the ABC based in Suva. An earlier audio report from her on the Fiji media is here. Republished with permission.

  • Airstrikes ordered against civilian targets, destruction of thousands of buildings, millions displaced, nearly 3000 civilians murdered, more than 13,000 jailed, the country’s independent media banished, and the country locked in a deadly nationwide civil war. Myanmar civilians now ask what else must happen before they receive international support in line with Ukraine, writes Phil Thornton.

    SPECIAL REPORT: By Phil Thornton

    In the two years since Myanmar’s military seized power from the country’s elected lawmakers it has waged a war of terror against its citizens — members of the Civil Disobedience Movement, artists, poets, actors, politicians, health workers, student leaders, public servants, workers, and journalists.

    The military-appointed State Administration Council amended laws to punish anyone critical of its illegal coup or the military. International standards of freedoms — speech, expression, assembly, and association were “criminalised”.

    The Assistance Association for Political Prisoners (Burma), reported as of 30 January 2023, the military killed 2901 people and arrested another 17,492 (of which 282 were children), with 13,719 people still in detention.

    One hundred and forty three people have been sentenced to death and four have been executed since the military’s coup on 1 February 2021. Of those arrested, 176 were journalists and as many as 62 are still in jail or police detention.

    The Committee to Protect Journalists ranks Myanmar as the world’s second-highest jailers of journalists. Fear of attacks, harassment, intimidation, censorship, detainment, and threats of assassination for their reporting has driven journalists and media workers underground or to try to reach safety in neighbouring countries.

    Journalist Ye Htun Oo has been arrested, tortured, received death threats, and is now forced to seek safety outside of Myanmar. Ye Htun spoke to the International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) of his torture, jailing and why he felt he had no choice, but to leave Myanmar for the insecurity of a journalist in exile.

    They came for me in the morning
    “I started as a journalist in 2007 but quit after two years because of the difficulty of working under the military. I continued to work, writing stories and poetry. In 2009 I restarted work as a freelance video and documentary maker.”

    Ye Htu said making money from journalism in Myanmar had never been easy.

    “I was lucky if I made 300,000 kyat a month (about NZ$460) — it was a lot of work, writing, editing, interviewing and filming.”

    Ye Htun’s hands, fingers and thin frame twist and turn as he takes time to return to the darkness of the early morning when woken by police and military knocking on his front door.

    “It was 2 am, the morning of 9 October 2021. We were all asleep. The knocking on the door was firm but gentle. I opened the door. Men from the police and the military’s special media investigation unit stood there — no uniforms. They’d come to arrest me.”

    Ye Htun links the visit of the police and army to his friend’s arrest the day before.

    “He had my number on his phone and when questioned told them I was a journalist. I hadn’t written anything for a while. The only reason they arrested me was because I was identified as a journalist — it was enough for them. The military unit has a list of journalists who they want to control, arrest, jail or contain.”

    Ye Htun explains how easy it is for journalists to be arrested.

    “When they arrest people…if they find a reference to a journalist or a phone number it’s enough to put you on their list.”

    After the coup, Ye Htun continued to report.

    “I was not being paid, moving around, staying in different places, following the protests. I was taking photos. I took a photo of citizens arresting police and it was published. This causes problems for the people in the photo. It also caused some people to regard me and journalists as informers — we were now in a hard place, not knowing what or who we could photograph. I decided to stop reporting and made the decision to move home. That’s when they came and arrested me.”

    In the early morning before sunrise, the police and military removed Ye Htun from his home and family and took him to a detention cell inside a military barracks.

    “They took all my equipment — computer, cameras, phone, and hard disks. The men who arrested and took me to the barracks left and others took over. Their tone changed. I was accused of being a PDF (People’s Defence Force militia).

    “Ye Htun describes how the ‘politeness’ of his captors soon evaporated, and the danger soon became a brutal reality. They started to beat me with kicks, fists, sticks and rubber batons. They just kept beating me, no questions. I was put in foot chains — ankle braces.”

    The beating of Ye Htun would continue for 25 days and the uncertainty and hurt still shows in his eyes, as he drags up the details he’s now determined to share.

    “I was interrogated by an army captain who ordered me to show all my articles — there was little to show. They made me kneel on small stones and beat me on the body — never the head as they said, ‘they needed it intact for me to answer their questions’”.

    Ye Htun explained it wasn’t just his assigned interrogators who beat or tortured him.

    “Drunk soldiers came regularly to spit, insult or threaten me with their guns or knives.”

    Scared, feared for his life
    Ye Htun is quick to acknowledge he was scared and feared for his life.

    “I was terrified. No one knew where I was. I knew my family would be worried. Everyone knows of people being arrested and then their dead, broken bodies, missing vital organs, being returned to grieving families.”

    After 25 days of torture, Ye Htun was transferred to a police jail.

    “They accused me of sending messages they had ‘faked’ and placed on my phone. I was sentenced to two years jail on 3rd November — I had no lawyer, no representative.”

    Ye Htun spoke to political prisoners during his time in jail and concluded many were behind bars on false charges.

    “Most political prisoners are there because of fake accusations. There’s no proper rule of law — the military has turned the whole country into a prison.”

    Ye Htun served over a year and five months of his sentence and was one of six journalists released in an amnesty from Pyay Jail on 4 January 2023.

    Not finished torturing
    Any respite Ye Htun or his family received from his release was short-lived, as it became apparent the military was not yet finished torturing him. He was forced to sign a declaration that if he was rearrested he would be expected to serve his existing sentence plus any new ones, and he received death threats.

    Soon after his release, the threats to his family were made.

    “I was messaged on Facebook and on other social media apps. The messages said, ‘don’t go out alone…keep your family and wife away from us…’ their treats continued every two or three days.”

    Ye Htun and his family have good cause to be concerned about the threats made against them. Several pro-military militias have openly declared on social media their intention against those opposed to the military’s control of the country.

    A pro-military militia, Thwe Thauk Apwe (Blood Brothers), specialise in violent killings designed to terrorise.

    Frontier Magazine reported in May 2022 that Thwe Thauk Apwe had murdered 14 members of the National League of Democracy political party in two weeks. The militia uses social media to boast of its gruesome killings and to threaten its targets — those opposed to military rule — PDF units, members of political parties, CDM members, independent media outlets and journalists.

    Ye Htun said fears for his wife and children’s safety forced him to leave Myanmar.

    “I couldn’t keep putting them at risk because I’m a journalist. I will continue to work, but I know I can’t do it in Myanmar until this military regime is removed.”

    Air strikes target civilians – where’s the UN?
    Award-winning documentary maker and artist, Sai Kyaw Khaing, dismayed at the lack of coverage by international and regional media on the impacts of Myanmar’s military aerial strikes on civilian targets, decided to make the arduous trip to the country’s northwest to find out.

    In the two years since the military regime took illegal control of the country’s political infrastructure, Myanmar is now engaged in a brutal, countrywide civil war.

    Civilian and political opposition to the military coup saw the formation of People Defence Force units under the banner of the National Unity Government established in April 2021 by members of Parliament elected at the 2020 elections and outlawed by the military after its coup.

    Thousands of young people took up arms and joined PDF units, trained by Ethnic Armed Organisations, to defend villages and civilians and fight the military regime. The regime vastly outnumbered and outmuscled the PDFs and EAOs with its military hardware — tanks, heavy artillery, helicopter gunships and fighter jets.

    Sai Kyaw contacted a number of international media outlets with his plans to travel deep inside the conflict zone to document how displaced people were coping with the airstrikes and burning of their villages and crops.

    Sai Kyaw said it was telling that he has yet to receive a single response of interest from any of the media he approached.

    “What’s happening in Myanmar is being ignored, unlike the conflict in Ukraine. Most of the international media, if they do report on Myanmar, want an ‘expert’ to front their stories, even better if it’s one of their own, a Westerner.”

    Deadly strike impact
    Sai Kyaw explains why what is happening on the ground needs to be explained — the impacts of the deadly airstrikes on the lives of unarmed villagers.

    “My objective is to talk to local people. How can they plant or harvest their crops during the intense fighting? How can they educate their kids or get medical help?

    “Thousands of houses, schools, hospitals, churches, temples, and mosques have been targeted and destroyed — how are the people managing to live?”

    Sai Kyaw put up his own money to finance his trip to a neighbouring country where he then made contact with people prepared to help him get to northwestern Myanmar, which was under intense attacks from the military regime.

    “It took four days by motorbike on unlit mountain dirt tracks that turned to deep mud when it rained. We also had to avoid numerous military checkpoints, military informers, and spies.”

    Sai Kyaw said that after reaching his destination, meeting with villagers, and witnessing their response to the constant artillery and aerial bombardments, their resilience astounded him.

    “These people rely on each other, when they’re bombed from their homes, people who still have a house rally around and offer shelter. They don’t have weapons to fight back, but they organise checkpoints managed by men and women.”

    Sai Kyaw said being unable to predict when an airstrike would happen took its toll on villagers.

    Clinics, schools bombed
    “You don’t know when they’re going to attack — day or night — clinics, schools, places of worship — are bombed. These are not military targets — they don’t care who they kill.”

    Sai Kyaw witnessed an aerial bombing and has the before and after film footage that shows the destruction. Rows of neat houses, complete with walls intact before the air strike are left after the attack with holes a car could drive through.

    “The unpredictable and indiscriminate attacks mean villagers are unable to harvest their crops or plant next season’s rice paddies.”

    Sai Kyaw is concerned that the lack of aid getting to the people in need of shelter, clothing, food, and medicine will cause a large-scale humanitarian crisis.

    “There’s no sign of international aid getting to the people. If there’s a genuine desire to help the people, international aid groups can do it by making contact with local community groups. It seems some of these big international aid donors are reluctant to move from their city bases in case they upset the military’s SAC [State Administration Council].”

    At the time of writing Sai Kyaw Khaing has yet to receive a reply from any of the international media he contacted.

    It’s the economy stupid
    A veteran Myanmar journalist, Kyaw Kyaw*, covered a wide range of stories for more than 15 years, including business, investment, and trade. He told IFJ he was concerned the ban on independent media, arrests of journalists, gags and access restrictions on sources meant many important stories went unreported.

    “The military banning of independent media is a serious threat to our freedom of speech. The military-controlled state media can’t be relied on. It’s well documented, it’s mainly no news or fake news overseen by the military’s Department of Propaganda.”

    Kyaw lists the stories that he explains are in critical need of being reported — the cost of consumer goods, the collapse of the local currency, impact on wages, lack of education and health care, brain drain as people flee the country, crops destroyed and unharvested and impact on next year’s yield.

    Kyaw is quick to add details to his list.

    “People can’t leave the country fast enough. There are more sellers than buyers of cars and houses. Crime is on the rise as workers’ real wages fall below the poverty line. Garment workers earned 4800 kyat, the minimum daily rate before the military’s coup. The kyat was around 1200 to the US dollar — about four dollars. Two years after the coup the kyat is around 2800 — workers’ daily wage has dropped to half, about US$2 a day.”

    Kyaw Kyaw’s critique is compelling as he explains the cost of everyday consumer goods and the impact on households.

    “Before the coup in 2021, rice cost a household, 32,000 kyat for around 45kg. It is now selling at 65,000 kyat and rising. Cooking oil sold at 3,000 kyat for 1.6kg now sells for over double, 8,000kyat.

    “It’s the same with fish, chicken, fuel, and medicine – family planning implants have almost doubled in cost from 25,000 kyat to now selling at 45,000 kyat.”

    Humanitarian crisis potential
    Kyaw is dismayed that the media outside the country are not covering stories that have a huge impact on people’s daily struggle to feed and care for their families and have the real potential for a massive humanitarian crisis in the near future.

    “The focus is on the revolution, tallies of dead soldiers, politics — all important, but journalists and local and international media need to report on the hidden costs of the military’s coup. Local media outlets need to find solutions to better cover these issues.”

    Kyaw stresses international governments and institutions — ASEAN, UK, US, China, and India — need to stop talking and take real steps to remove and curb the military’s destruction of the country.

    “In two years, they displaced over a million people, destroyed thousands of houses and religious buildings, attacked schools and hospitals — killing students and civilians — what is the UNSC waiting for?”

    An independent think tank, the Institute for Strategy and Policy – Myanmar, and the UN agency for refugees confirm Kyaws Kyaw’s claims.The Institute for Strategy and Policy reports “at least 28,419 homes and buildings were torched or destroyed…in the aftermath of the coup between 1 February 2021, and 15 July 2022.”

    The UN agency responsible for refugees, the UNHCR, estimates the number of displaced people in Myanmar is a staggering 1,574,400. Since the military coup and up to January 23, the number was 1,244,000 people displaced.

    While the world’s media and governments focus their attention and military aid on Ukraine, Myanmar’s people continue to ask why their plight continues to be ignored.

    Phil Thornton is a journalist and senior adviser to the International Federation of Journalists in Southeast Asia. This article was first published by the IFJ Asia-Pacific blog and is republished with the author’s permission. Thornton is also a contributor to Asia Pacific Report.

    *Name has been changed as requested for security concerns.

  • By Repeka Nasiko in Lautoka

    Fiji’s Media Industry Development Act will soon be reviewed over the next few weeks.

    Speaking to The Fiji Times in Lautoka on Monday, Minister for Communications Manoa Kamikamica said the review was one of the main objectives of the coalition government when it came to freedom of the press.

    “The Media Decree is going to be reviewed,” he said.

    “It is no secret that it is one of the priorities of the coalition government, so hopefully in the next few weeks we will be making some progress on that.”

    He said that since the change in government media freedom had been felt among the industry.

    “You can see there is already freedom of the press that you can feel when there is a change in leadership.

    “So that is a positive for the media industry and I can assure you that the Media Decree review is happening and it will be happening over the coming weeks.”

    More communication plans
    He added that there were more plans to develop Fiji’s communication sector.

    “There are a lot of things to do in communication,” he said.

    “There are still a lot of people that have not been reached yet in terms of service delivery so that is a priority of government as well.

    “There are also a lot of technological industries that are starting to come to Fiji for example the BPO (business process outsourcing) sector.

    “This is one so need to make sure that the government supports and there are a few things we are going to be doing there.

    “So there’s a lot to do and we have a plan and we will take it forward.”

    Repeka Nasiko is a Fiji Times reporter. Republished with permission.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Rights groups raise doubts over road accident in which police say outspoken editor John Williams Ntwali was killed

    Amnesty International and the Committee to Protect Journalists, an independent NGO based in New York, are among media and rights organisations calling for an independent investigation into the death of the Rwandan journalist John Williams Ntwali.

    Ntwali, a regular critic of the Rwandan authorities, was found dead on 18 January. According to reported police accounts, he was killed in a motorcycle accident in the capital, Kigali.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • By Dandy Koswaraputra and Pizaro Gozali Idrus

    A veteran journalist known for covering rights abuses in Indonesia’s militarised Papua region says a bomb exploded outside his home yesterday and a journalists group has called it an act of “intimidation” threatening press freedom.

    No one was injured in the blast near his home in the provincial capital Jayapura, said Victor Mambor, editor of Papua’s leading news website Jubi, who visited New Zealand in 2014.

    Police said they were investigating the explosion and that no one had yet claimed responsibility.

    “Yes, someone threw a bomb,” Papua Police spokesperson Ignatius Benny told Benar News. “The motive and perpetrators are unknown.”

    The Jayapura branch of the Alliance of Independent Journalists (AJI) condemned the explosion as a “terrorist bombing”.

    In Sydney, the Australia West Papua Association (AWPA) and Pacific Media Watch in New Zealand protested over the incident and called for a full investigation.

    Mambor said he heard the sound of a motorcycle at about 4 am and then an explosion about a minute later.

    ‘Shook like earthquake’
    “It was so loud that my house shook like there was an earthquake,” he told Benar News as reported by Radio Free Asia.

    “I also checked the source of the explosion and smelt sulfur coming from the side of the house.”

    The explosion left a hole in the road, he said.

    The incident was not the first to occur outside Mambor’s home. In April 2021, windows were smashed and paint sprayed on his car in the middle of the night.

    Tabloid Jubi editor Victor Mambor
    Tabloid Jubi editor Victor Mambor being interviewed by Pacific Media Watch’s Anna Majavu during the first visit by a Papuan journalist to New Zealand in 2014. Image: Del Abcede/PMW

    Mambor is also an advocate for press freedom in Papua. In that role, he has criticised Jakarta’s restrictions on the media in Papua, as well as its other policies in his troubled home province.

    The AJI awarded Mambor its press freedom award in August 2022, saying that through Jubi, “Victor brings more voices from Papua, amid domination of information that is biased, one-sided and discriminatory.”

    “AJI in Jayapura strongly condemns the terrorist bombing and considers this an act of intimidation that threatens press freedom in Papua,” it said in a statement.

    ‘Voice the truth’ call
    “AJI Jayapura calls on all journalists in the land of Papua to continue to voice the truth despite obstacles. Justice should be upheld even though the sky is falling,” said AJI chair Lucky Ireeuw.

    Amnesty International Indonesia urged the police to find those responsible.

    “The police must thoroughly investigate this incident, because this is not the first time … meaning there was an omission that made the perpetrators feel free to do it again, to intimidate and threaten journalists,” Amnesty’s campaign manager in Indonesia, Nurina Savitri, told BenarNews.

    The Papua region, located at the eastern end of the Indonesian archipelago, has been the site of a decades-old pro-independence insurgency where both government security forces and rebels have been accused of committing atrocities against civilians.

    Foreign journalists have been largely barred from the area, with the government insisting it could not guarantee their safety. Indonesian journalists allege that officials make their work difficult by refusing to provide information.

    The armed elements of the independence movement have stepped up lethal attacks on Indonesian security forces, civilians and targets such as construction of a trans-Papua highway that would make the Papuan highlands more accessible.

    Human Rights Watch, meanwhile, has accused Indonesian security forces of intimidation, arbitrary arrests, torture, extrajudicial killings and mass forced displacement in Papua.

    Security forces kill 36
    Last month, Indonesian activist group KontraS said 36 people were killed by security forces and pro-independence rebels in the Papua and West Papua provinces in 2022, an increase from 28 in 2021.

    In Sydney, Joe Collins of the AWPA said in a statement: “These acts of intimidation against local journalists in West Papua  threaten freedom of the press.

    “It is the local media in West Papua that first report on human rights abuses and local journalists are crucial in reporting information on what is happening in West Papua”.

    Collins said Canberra remained silent on the issue — ‘the Australian government is very selective in who it criticises over their human rights record.”

    There was no problem raising concerns about China or Russia over their record, “but Canberra seems to have great difficulty in raising the human rights abuses in West Papua with Jakarta.”

    Republished from Free Radio Asia with additional reporting by Pacific Media Watch.

    Victor Mambor as an advocate for media freedom in West Papua
    Victor Mambor as an advocate for media freedom in West Papua. Image: AWPA

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg joined other leading journalists, attorneys and human rights defenders to call on the Biden administration to drop its extradition request and indictment against journalist and WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange, citing the grave threat Assange’s prosecution would pose to journalism worldwide. “Every empire requires secrecy to cloak its acts of…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • ANALYSIS: By Brett Wilkins

    As Julian Assange awaits the final appeal of his looming extradition to the United States while languishing behind bars in London’s notorious Belmarsh Prison, leading left luminaries and free press advocates gathered in Washington, DC, on Friday for the fourth sitting of the Belmarsh Tribunal, where they called on US President Joe Biden to drop all charges against the WikiLeaks publisher.

    “From Ankara to Manila to Budapest to right here in the United States, state actors are cracking down on journalists, their sources, and their publishers in a globally coordinated campaign to disrupt the public’s access to information,” co-chair and Democracy Now! host Amy Goodman said during her opening remarks at the National Press Club.

    “The Belmarsh Tribunal… pursues justice for journalists who are imprisoned or persecuted [and] publishers and whistleblowers who dare to reveal the crimes of our governments,” she said.

    “Assange’s case is the first time in history that a publisher has been indicted under the Espionage Act,” Goodman added.

    “Recently, it was revealed that the CIA had been spying illegally on Julian, his lawyers, and some members of this very tribunal. The CIA even plotted his assassination at the Ecuadorean Embassy under [former US President Donald] Trump.”

    Assange — who suffers from physical and mental health problems, including heart and respiratory issues — could be imprisoned for 175 years if fully convicted of Espionage Act violations.

    Among the classified materials published by WikiLeaks — many provided by whistleblower Chelsea Manning — are the infamous “Collateral Murder” video showing a US Army helicopter crew killing a group of Iraqi civilians, the Afghan War Diary, and the Iraq War Logs, which revealed American and allied war crimes.

    Arbitrary detention
    According to the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, Assange has been arbitrarily deprived of his freedom since he was arrested on December 7, 2010. Since then he has been held under house arrest, confined for seven years in the Ecuadorean Embassy in London while he was protected by the administration of former Ecuadorean President Rafael Correa, and jailed in Belmarsh Prison, for which the tribunal is named.

    Human rights, journalism, peace, and other groups have condemned Assange’s impending extradition and the US government’s targeting of an Australian journalist who exposed American war crimes.

    In a statement ahead of Friday’s tribunal, co-chair and Croatian philosopher Srećko Horvat said:

    The First Amendment, freedom of the press, and the life of Julian Assange are at stake. That’s why the Belmarsh Tribunal is landing literally just two blocks away from the White House.

    As long as the Biden administration continues to deploy tools like the Espionage Act to imprison those who dare to expose war crimes, no publisher and no journalist will be safe.

    Our tribunal is gathering courageous voices of dissent to demand justice for those crimes and to demand President Biden to drop the charges against Assange immediately.

    Belmarsh Tribunal participants include Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg, US academic Noam Chomsky, British parliamentarian Jeremy Corbyn, former Assange lawyer Renata Ávila, human rights attorney Steven Donziger, and WikiLeaks editor-in-chief Kristinn Hrafnsson.


    The Belmarsh Tribunal hearing in Washington DC on January 20, 2023. Video: Democracy Now!

    Assange’s father, John Shipton, and the whistleblower’s wife and lawyer Stella Assange, are also members, as are Shadowproof editor Kevin Gosztola, Chip Gibbons of Defending Rights, Selay Ghaffar of the Solidarity Party of Afghanistan, investigative journalist Stefania Maurizi, The Nation publisher Katrina vanden Heuvel, and ACLU attorney Ben Wizner.

    First Amendment foundation
    “One of the foundation stones of our form of government here in the United States . . . is our First Amendment to the Constitution,” Ellsberg — whom the Richard Nixon administration tried to jail for up to 115 years under the Espionage Act, but due to government misconduct was never imprisoned — said in a recorded message played at the tribunal.

    “Up until Assange’s indictment, the act had never been used… against a journalist like Assange,” Ellsberg added. “If you’re going to use the act against a journalist in a blatant violation of the First Amendment… the First Amendment is essentially gone.”

    Ávila said before Thursday’s event that “the Espionage Act is one of the most dangerous pieces of legislation in the world: an existential threat against international investigative journalism.”

    “If applied, it will deprive us of one of our must powerful tools towards de-escalation of conflicts, diplomacy, and peace,” she added.

    “The Belmarsh Tribunal convened in Washington to present evidence of this chilling threat, and to unite lawmakers next door to dismantle the legal architecture that undermines the basic right of all peoples to know what their governments do in their name.”

    The Belmarsh Tribunal, first convened in London in 2021, is inspired by the Russell Tribunal, a 1966 event organised by philosophers Bertrand Russell and Jean-Paul Sartre to hold the US accountable for its escalating war crimes in Vietnam.

    Brett Wilkins is a staff writer for Common Dreams. Republished under a Creative Commons licence.

  • By Lian Buan in Manila

    The Philippines’ Court of Tax Appeals has acquitted Nobel laureate Maria Ressa and Rappler Holdings Corporation (RHC) of four charges of tax evasion that were filed in 2018 by the previous Duterte government.

    The CTA 1st Division decided yesterday to acquit Ressa and RHC, Rappler’s holding company, in the Duterte government’s charge that it evaded tax payments when it raised capital through its partnership with foreign investors North Base Media (NBM) and Omidyar Network (ON).

    This involved the issuance to the two entities of Philippine Depositary Receipts or PDRs, financial instruments commonly used even among media companies like ABS-CBN and GMA Network.

    In an 80-page decision, the court ordered the acquittal of Ressa and RHC for “failure of the prosecution to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt’.

    The decision was signed by Associate Justices Catherine Manahan, Jean Marie Bacorro-Villena, and Marian Ivy Reyes-Fajardo. Presiding Justice Roman del Rosario inhibited from the proceedings but certified the decision.

    The victory ends more than four years of trial of a case filed in March 2018, two months after the Philippines’ Securities and Exchange Commission issued a closure order against Rappler on the basis of the Duterte government’s charge that it broke the law by being foreign-owned.

    Rappler is a 100 percent Filipino company, a point asserted by the company in its appeal of the SEC order at the Court of Appeals (CA).

    An emotional Ressa said after the verdict: “Today, facts win, truth wins, justice wins,” calling for freedom of detained former senator Leila de Lima and jailed journalists like Frenchie Mae Cumpio.

    De Lima will begin her seventh year in prison in February, while Cumpio will begin her fourth year also in February.


    Rappler CEO Maria Ressa talks to the media.                                        Video: Rappler

    The CTA voted 3-0 to decide the “non-taxability of the issuance of PDRs to North Base Media and Omidyar Network.” The court added, “No gain or income was realised by accused in the subject transactions.

    “Since accused is not required to pay the income tax and VAT on the PDR transactions for the taxable year 2015, the elements of Sections 254 and 255 of the 1977 NIRC as amended, are rendered nugatory and without legal support. The plaintiff therefore failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt,” said the CTA decision.

    The CTA also said, “There is nothing in the wordings of the PDR instruments and the PDR subscription agreements that would show the foreign entities NBM and ON will become owners of the shares of stock of Rappler.”

    Ressa’s lawyer Francis Lim, the former president of the Philippine Stock Exchange, said that if PDRs were declared to be taxable income just to convict Ressa and Rappler, every business seeking to raise capital would be affected.

    “At the end of the day, it’s our economy, it’s our people through job generation that will benefit. Imagine if Maria was convicted, the repercussions,” said Lim.

    ‘Keep the faith’
    Lim also said: “We had no doubt this day would come. I told them keep the faith, because in our hearts we knew an acquittal would come. We trust our judiciary, everybody knew where this case came from.”

    It was former Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) commissioner Caesar Dulay, a Duterte appointee, who initiated the lightning tax probe into Rappler on January 24, 2018; he filed the criminal complaints two months later, in March, before the justice department then headed by Menardo Guevarra, another Duterte appointee.

    Guevarra charged Ressa and RHC at the CTA in November 2018.

    The CTA’s acquittal of RHC and Ressa is expected to affect a related case that was filed by the Duterte government against the two before the Pasig City Regional Trial Court, which handles tax cases involving less than P1 million (about NZ$28,500).

    Rappler is about to wrap up its presentation of evidence for that case; the facts are identical to the four charges that the CTA junked yesterday.

    In general, an acquittal cannot be appealed against because of the right against double jeopardy.

    Three cases left
    With the junking of the four CTA cases, there remain only three active court cases against Rappler and Ressa: the appeal of Ressa and former researcher Reynaldo Santos Jr. in their conviction for cyber libel pending at the Supreme Court, the lone tax case at the Pasig City RTC, and the appeal on the closure of Rappler pending at the CA.

    The mother case, the SEC’s closure order that is pending at the appeals court, accuses Rappler of violating the constitutional requirement that Filipino media companies must be 100 percent Filipino-owned. The alleged violation was supposedly committed when it issued PDRs to foreign investor ON.

    The court previously said that Rappler was entitled to a curing period, and that ON’s donation of the PDRs to Filipino managers had removed the problem. But the SEC in the last two days of the Duterte term in June 2022, stood firm on its order to close down Rappler — triggering another round of litigation at the appellate court which is still ongoing.

    In the CTA cases, Rappler’s lawyers said that in the last 20 years, the BIR has treated PDRs as derivatives of stock for which only documentary stamp tax was due to be paid.

    “This case exemplifies how the power of taxation can be used as a tool to cause a thousand cuts to our democracy. Rappler Inc., which has been at the forefront of providing independent journalism in the Philippines, caught the ire of the Duterte Government,” Rappler and Ressa said in a final memorandum submitted to the CTA before yesterday’s judgment.

    “As a result, and for the first time in Philippine history, the BIR classified a holding company that issued PDRs as a dealer in securities and required the payment of income tax and VAT.

    “The government’s targeted attack and investigations against Rappler Inc.’s parent company, accused Rappler Holdings Corporation and RHC’s president Maria Ressa, presents a clear example of how the law can be bent to the point that it is broken,” said Rappler’s memorandum.

    Lian Buan is a senior Rappler journalist. Republished with permission.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • By Arieta Vakasukawaqa in Suva

    Fiji’s much-anticipated Media Industry Development Authority (MIDA) Act review is now being drafted and expected to be tabled at the next cabinet meeting on January 17.

    Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka confirmed this to journalists during an interview in Suva last Friday when he was questioned about the government’s actions to repeal the Act that was imposed by the FijiFirst government.

    “It is currently being drafted by our legal team at the Office of the Attorney-General in conjunction with input from the Ministry of Information,” Rabuka said.

    Fiji Times editor-in-chief Fred Wesley welcomed the statement by Rabuka.

    “It has been long overdue, and this is something we had been hoping to see happen,” Wesley said.

    Meanwhile, Rabuka reminded journalists they could do their work without fear as long their reporting was balanced.

    Arieta Vakasukawaqa is a Fiji Times reporter. Republished with permission.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • By John Mitchell in Suva

    In any true democracy, the role of journalists and the media outlets they represent is to inform the people so that they can make educated and well-informed choices.

    The role of politicians is to represent those who elected them.

    They are to make decisions that best serve the public interest and to ensure that the concerns of citizens are heard, considered, and, where appropriate, acted upon.

    In such a political system, the journalist and the politician must both serve the people but in peculiarly differing ways.

    Journalists act on behalf of citizens by exploring and covering issues that concern the people and in doing so they include a diversity of voices and political opinions that offer different viewpoints and opinions.

    The bottom line of their job is ensuring that politicians do their job transparently, with accountability and through better public service delivery.

    In the end, journalism enhances, encourages meaningful dialogue and debate in society.

    On the other hand, politicians use the media to reach the masses, make them understand their policies and through this — get acceptance and approval from the public.

    Politicians love media spotlight
    Politicians naturally love the media spotlight for without reporters nobody knows their policies and their good deeds, no matter how grand they may be.

    Politicians love talking to reporters so they can get publicity.

    Reporters like politicians too because they provide them with stories — there goes the long story of the symbiotic relationship between the press and powerful members of the legislature.

    What a perfect relationship.

    Absolutely wrong!

    Some say the relationship is one of “love and hate” and always hangs in the balance.

    This liaison of sorts is more than meets the eye and the truth is simple.

    Like the legislature, the media has a prominent and permanent place in national leadership and governance (known as the Fourth Estate).

    Critical components of democracy
    Both are critical components of a democracy.

    Because of their democratic mandate, the media and politicians cannot be fulltime bedfellows.

    And as the saying goes, they will have their moments.

    However, in past years The Fiji Times has always been seen as the “enemy of the state”.

    This had nothing to do with the media’s work as a watchdog of society or the Fourth Estate, but rather with the way in which the former government muzzled the media and created an environment of fear through draconian media laws that stifled freedom of expression and constricted media freedom.

    Simply put, a newspaper and any truly independent media outlet must be fair and in being fair, its content must reflect the rich diversity of views and opinions that exists in the public sphere, as well as the aspirations, fears and concerns of the varied groups that exist in the community.

    Experts, academics or anyone outside of government is welcomed to use this forum of information exchange, dissemination and sharing.

    Politicians, if they have nothing to hide, can use it too, provided what they have to say is honest, sincere and accurate.

    Listening to pluralistic ‘voices’
    A responsible government deliberately chooses to listen attentively to pluralistic “voices” in the media although these expressions may put it in an uncomfortable position.

    A responsible government also explores avenues in which valid ideas could be propagated to improve its own practices and achieve its intended outcome.

    In other words, a newspaper exists to, among other reasons, communicate and amplify issues of concern faced by citizens.

    This includes voicing citizens’ complaints over any laxity in government’s service delivery, especially people in rural areas who often do not enjoy the public services that we so often take for granted in towns and cities.

    So whenever, people use the mainstream media to raise concerns over poor roads, water, garbage disposal, education and inferior health services, the public does so with the genuine yearning for assistance and intervention from government.

    And in providing this platform for exchange, the media achieves its democratic goal of getting authorities to effectively respond to taxpayers’ needs, keep their development promises and deliver according to their election manifestos.

    Remember, a responsible newspaper or media does not exist to act as government’s mouthpiece.

    Retaining media independence
    If media outlets give up their independence and allow themselves to be used by politicians for political parties’ own political agenda and gains, then citizens who rely on the media as an instrument for meaningful dialogue, discussion and discourse will be denied their participatory space and expressive rights.

    A responsible and autonomous newspaper like The Fiji Times does not exist to make government feel good.

    For if this ever occurs, this newspaper will compromise its ability to provide the necessary oversight on government powers and actions, without which, abuse of power and corruption thrive to the detriment of ordinary citizens.

    If media organisations and journalists who work for them operate in the way they should, then for obvious reasons, all politicians in government will “sometimes” find the media “upsetting” and “meddlesome”.

    Copping the flak from ministers and those in positions of authority is part and parcel of the media’s work.

    It is a healthy sign that democracy works.

    This newspaper was instrumental in calling on the SVT (Soqosoqo Vakavulewa ni Taukei) government and its then prime minister, Sitiveni Rabuka, (now Fiji’s Prime Minister again under the People’s Alliance Party-PAP/National Federation Party (NFP) and Sodelpa coalition) to account for the enormous financial loss which caused the collapse of the National Bank of Fiji in the 1990s.

    Our pages can prove that.

    This newspaper also scrutinised many of the policies of the coalition government under the leadership of Mahendra Chaudhry and Laisenia Qarase, during whose time, this newspaper was the common foe.

    Our pages can prove that.

    Last government ‘vindictive, authoritarian’
    But no government was as vindictive and authoritarian as the last government.

    Today, early in the days of the PAP/NFP and Sodelpa coalition government, we are seeing the good old days of media freedom slowly coming back.

    We can now doorstop the Prime Minister and call the Attorney-General at 9pm for a comment and get an answer.

    The openness with which ministers talk to the press is encouraging.

    We hope things stay that way and the government accepts that we will sometimes put out stories that it finds positive and there will be times when we will make its life difficult and uneasy.

    At the end of the day, it is the people that we both work hard to serve.

    Sometimes we will step on some people’s toes, be blamed for provoking disquiet and seem unpopular among powerful politicians.

    That is to be expected and embraced.

    Safeguarding press freedom
    But we will continue to play a prominent role in safeguarding the freedom of the press so that all Fijians can enjoy their own rights and freedoms.

    With the best intentions, our journalists will continue to forge forward with their pursuit of truth and human dignity, regardless of the political party in power.

    As we rebuild Fiji and regain what many people think we’ve lost in 16 years, this newspaper will play a pivotal role in allowing government to reach the people so that they make informed choices about their lives.

    We must face it — Fiji is heavily in debt, many families are struggling, the health system is in a poor state, thousands are trapped in poverty and the most vulnerable members of society are hanging in the balance, taking one day at a time.

    It is in this environment of uncertainty that the media and politicians must operate in for the common good.

    And as a responsible newspaper, we will listen to all Fijians and provide a safe space to express their voices.

    That is our mandate and our promise.

    John Mitchell is a senior Fiji Times feature writer who writes a weekly column, “Behind The News”. Republished with permission.

  • By Pauliasi Mateboto in Suva

    Fiji Deputy Prime Minister Viliame Gavoka says the Media Industry Development Act will be replaced soon.

    Speaking to members of the media after the coalition agreement signing for Fiji’s new government on Friday, he said the three leaders were in harmony in terms of repealing the Act.

    “Absolutely free, we want to remove any kind of prohibitions and restrictions,” Gavoka said.

    He said it was the wish of the coalition government for the media to be free and for the people of Fiji to live in a free society.

    “We want you to be totally free to act and that is also the part of understanding — we live in a totally free country,” he said.

    Pacific Media Watch reports that Associate Professor Shailendra Singh, head of the University of the South Pacific regional journalism programme, commented on Twitter:

    “Fiji’s much-criticised punitive Media Act to be replaced — question is replaced with what? Since its implementation 13 yrs ago no one has been charged under the Act underscoring its redundancy.

    “But it was like a noose [around the] media’s neck and blamed for self-censorship/chilling effect.”

    Pauliasi Mateboto is a Fiji Times reporter. Republished with permission.

  • Pacific Media Watch

    With murders, contract killings, ambushes, war zone deaths and fatal injuries, a staggering total of 1668 journalists have been killed worldwide in connection with their work in the last two decades (2003-2022), according to the tallies by the Paris-based global media watchdog Reporters Without Borders (RSF) based on its annual round-ups.

    This gives an average of more than 80 journalists killed every year. The total killed since 2000 is 1787.

    RSF secretary-general Christophe Deloire said:

    “Behind the figures, there are the faces, personalities, talent and commitment of those who have paid with their lives for their information gathering, their search for the truth and their passion for journalism.

    In each of its annual round-ups, RSF has continued to document the unjustifiable violence that has specifically targeted media workers.

    This year’s end is an appropriate time to pay tribute to them and to appeal for full respect for the safety of journalists wherever they work and bear witness to the world’s realities.

    Darkest years
    The annual death tolls peaked in 2012 and 2013 with 144 and 142 journalists killed, respectively. These peaks, due in large measure to the war in Syria, were followed by a gradual fall and then historically low figures from 2019 onwards.

    Sadly, the number of journalists killed in connection with their work in 2022 — 58 according to RSF’s Press Freedom Barometer on December 28 — was the highest in the past four years and was 13.7 percent higher than in 2021, when 51 journalists were killed.

    15 most dangerous countries
    During the past two decades, 80 percent of the media fatalities have occurred in 15 countries. The two countries with the highest death tolls are Iraq and Syria, with a combined total of 578 journalists killed in the past 20 years, or more than a third of the worldwide total.

    They are followed by Afghanistan, Yemen and Palestine. Africa has not been spared, with Somalia coming next.

    With 47.4 percent of the journalists killed in 2022, America is nowadays clearly the world’s most dangerous continent for the media, which justifies the implementation of specific protection policies.

    Four countries – Mexico, Brazil, Colombia and Honduras – are among the world’s 15 most dangerous countries.

    Asia also has many countries on this tragic list, including the Philippines, with more than 100 journalists killed since the start of 2003, Pakistan with 93, and India with 58.

    Women journalists also victims
    Finally, while many more male journalists (more than 95 percent) have been killed in war zones or in other circumstances than their female counterparts, the latter have not been spared.

    A total of 81 women journalists have been killed in the past 20 years — 4.86 percent of the total media fatalities.

    Since 2012, 52 have been killed, in many cases after investigating women’s rights. Some years have seen spikes in the number of women journalists killed, and some of the spikes have been particularly alarming.

    In 2017, ten women journalists were killed (as against 64 male journalists) — a record 13.5 percent of that year’s total media fatalities.

    Pacific Media Watch collaborates with Reporters Without Borders.

  • By Veronica Koman in Sydney

    As an Indonesian lawyer living in exile in Australia, I find it deeply troubling that the changes to the Indonesian Criminal Code are seen through the lens that touchy tourists will be denied their freedom to fornicate on holiday in Bali.

    What the far-reaching amendments will actually mean is that hundreds of millions of Indonesians will not be able to criticise any government officials, including the president, police and military.

    You can be assured that the implementation of the Criminal Code will not affect the lucrative tourism industry which the Indonesian government depends on – it will affect ordinary people in what is the world’s third largest democracy.

    With just 18 out of 575 parliamentarians physically attending the plenary session, Indonesia passed the problematic revised Criminal Code last week. It’s a death knell to democracy in Indonesia.

    I live here as an exile because of my work on the armed conflict in West Papua. The United Nations has repeatedly asked Indonesia to drop the politicised charges against me. One of the six laws used against me, about “distributing fake news”, is now incorporated into the Criminal Code.

    In West Papua, any other version of events that are different to the statement of police and military, are often labelled “fake news”. In 2019, a piece from independent news agency Reuters was called a hoax by the Indonesian armed forces.

    Now, the authors of that article can be charged under the new Criminal Code which will effectively silence journalists and human rights defenders.

    Same-sex couples marginalised
    Moreover, the ban on sex outside marriage is heteronormative and effectively further marginalises same-sex couples because they can’t marry under Indonesian law.

    The law requires as little as a complaint from a relative of someone in a same sex relationship to be enforced, meaning LGBTQIA+ people would live in fear of their disapproving family members weaponising their identity against them.

    Meanwhile, technically speaking, the heteronormative cohabitation clause exempts same-sex couples. However, based on existing practice, LGBTQIA+ people would be disproportionately targeted now that people have the moral licence to do it.

    The criminal code has predictably sparked Islamophobic commentary from the international community but, for us, this is about the continued erosion of democracy under President Joko Widodo. This is about consolidated power of the oligarchs including the conservatives shrinking the civic space.

    Back when I was still able to live in my home country, it was acceptable to notify the police a day prior, or even on the day of a protest. About six years ago, police started to treat the notification as if it was a permit and made the requirements much stricter.

    The new Criminal Code makes snap protests illegal, violating international human rights law.

    Under the new code, any discussion about Marxism and Communism is illegal. Indonesia is still trapped in the past without any truth-telling about the crimes against humanity that occurred in 1965-66. At least 500,000 Communists and people accused of being communists were killed.

    Justice never served
    Justice has never been served despite time running out because the remaining survivors are getting older.

    It will be West Papuans rather than frisky Australian tourists who bear the brunt of the updated criminal code. The repression there, which I have seen first hand, is beyond anything I’ve seen anywhere else in the country.

    Treason charges which normally carry life imprisonment are often abused to silence West Papuans. Just last week, three West Papuans were charged with treason for peacefully flying the symbol of West Papuan independence — the Morning Star flag. The new treason law comes with the death penalty.

    It’s shameful that Australia just awarded the chief of Indonesian armed forces the Order of Australia, given that his institution is the main perpetrator of human rights abuses in West Papua.

    The new Criminal Code will take effect in three years. There is a window open for the international community, including Australia, to help safeguard the world’s third largest democracy.

    Indonesians need you to raise your voice and not just because you’re worried about your trip to Bali.

    Veronica Koman is an Indonesian human rights lawyer in exile and a campaigner at Amnesty International Australia. This article was first published by The Sydney Morning Herald and is republished by Asia Pacific Report with the author’s permission.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Readers respond to David Davis’s article about Slapps – strategic lawsuits against public participation – and their threat to freedom of expression

    David Davis MP is of course right to highlight the threat to free speech and democracy posed by so-called Slapp actions – strategic lawsuits against public participation – brought by oligarchs in British courts (Democracy is at risk. We can’t let oligarchs exploit British courts to silence their critics, 29 November).

    Sadly, attacks on freedom of speech and speaking truth to power in the UK are not the exclusive preserve of rich and powerful foreigners seeking to exploit an advantageous legal trade that successive UK governments have done little to discourage.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • RNZ Pacific

    Murder charges have been reinstated against the man suspected of killing French Polynesian journalist Jean-Pascal Couraud, known as “JPK” — his byline, who vanished in 1997.

    Francis Stein, a former head of the territory’s archive service, was first charged in 2019 but France’s highest court accepted his appeal last year that investigative magistrates had breached rules during his questioning.

    The investigative magistrates have now revived their probe against Stein and Miri Tatarata, who was JPK’s partner.

    The pair are both accused of killing JPK, an investigative journalist who was editor-in-chief of the French-language newspaper Les Nouvelles de Tahiti, whose body has never been found.

    An investigation was first opened in 2004 after a former spy claimed that JPK had been abducted and killed by the government’s GIP militia, which allegedly dumped him at sea between Moorea and Tahiti.

    Murder charges against two members of the now disbanded GIP were dismissed eight years ago, but kidnapping charges have been upheld.

    French Polynesian journalist Jean-Pascal Couraud
    French Polynesian journalist Jean-Pascal Couraud, who disappeared in 1997. Image: RNZ Pacific/AFP

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

  • Jennifer Robinson, Julian Assange’s Australian lawyer, has made it clear that the WikiLeaks founder could die in prison while appeals against his extradition to the US are exhausted.

    Assange faces a series of bogus charges – 17 relating to espionage and one for computer misuse.

    ‘He may not survive’

    On 19 October, Robinson spoke at the National Press Club in Canberra. She was blunt in her assessment of Assange’s health, saying “I don’t know how much longer he can last”. Indeed, on 12 December 2021, it was reported that Assange had suffered a Transient Ischaemic Attack (TIA), also sometimes referred to as a mini-stroke. A TIA can often indicate the likelihood of a follow-up major stroke.

    Robinson told the press club:

    Julian’s wife Stella waits anxiously for the phone call she dreads. As she has said, Julian is suffering profoundly in prison – and it is no exaggeration to say he may not survive it.

    She described what was happening to him as:

    Punishment by legal process. Bury[ing] him in never-ending legal process until he dies

    Appeals

    Robinson also brought up the matter of the appeals process:

    We have filed an appeal and we should learn soon whether the High Court will grant permission and hear it.

    If it does, we can expect a process that could take years – through the High Court, and to the UK Supreme Court. If we lose, we will appeal to the European Court of Human Rights [ECHR] – that is, if the conservative British government doesn’t remove its jurisdiction before we are able to.

    Indeed, the Tory government with Boris Johnson as prime minister considered making it easier for the UK to override ECHR rulings. And the next Tory administration could continue to push that policy.

    Should all appeals fail, Robinson explained:

    Julian will be extradited to the US – where his prison conditions will be at the whim of the intelligence agencies which plotted to kill him. He will face an unfair trial and once convicted, it could take years before a First Amendment constitutional challenge would be heard before the US Supreme Court.

    Another decade of his life gone – if he can survive that long.

    Legal milestones

    During the course of her speech, Robinson noted some of the recent legal milestones leading to the present day. For example:

    • In May 2020  the Canary published details of the notorious Special Administrative Measures (SAMs) that Assange would likely be subject to if extradited to the US.
    • In January 2021, the judge ruled that Assange’s extradition was disallowed on health grounds and the risk that he could take his own life.
    • However in December 2021 the US appealed that decision, offering an ‘assurance’ that, according to Robinson, US authorities would not “place him under SAMs unless they decide he later deserves it”. The magistrate then ruled that the extradition could go ahead after all, once the home secretary approves it.
    • In June 2022, then UK home secretary Priti Patel agreed that Assange could be extradited.
    • That decision led to the latest round of appeals.

    Wider context

    Robinson also summarised some of the other developments surrounding the case:

    • UN special rapporteur on torture Nils Melzer concluded in 2019 that Assange had been subjected to “torture”.
    • In 2017, US congressman Dana Rohrabacher met with the WikiLeaks founder in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, to offer him a deal. Robinson was present at the meeting. Rohrabacher wanted Assange to provide evidence that Russia did not hack the Democratic National Committee emails. At the time, president Donald Trump was under investigation as part of the Mueller inquiry into alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election. Rohrabacher told Assange that if he agreed to provide the evidence, Trump would arrange a pardon or protection against extradition. But Assange was not prepared to name the source of the leak. An indictment followed.
    • Meanwhile, in October 2021 news emerged that the CIA planned to kidnap and kill Assange in London.
    • Of the 18 charges listed against Assange, one is simply about measures taken by any journalist to protect a source – in this instance Chelsea Manning. The other charges merely relate to receiving and publishing of information and so violate a journalist’s freedom of expression.

    Political solution needed

    Robinson was also interviewed by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC).

    She told ABC that an urgent political solution is needed:

    This case needs an urgent political fix. Julian does not have another decade of his life to wait for a legal fix

    She added:

    And it might be surprising to hear that from me, as a lawyer, that the solution is not a legal one. It is a political one.

    On 17 October, more than 300 doctors sent a letter to then home secretary Suella Braverman and US attorney general Merrick Garland requesting that Assange be freed:

    The doctors say in the letter:

    It is a travesty that a remand prisoner never convicted of a crime is languishing in Britain’s most notorious high security prison, when he shouldn’t have been imprisoned in the first place. The critical nature of Mr. Assange’s physical and psychological health underscores the need for his immediate release from prison.

    The fear is that by stringing the legal process out over years, if not decades, Assange will not survive.

    And those implicated in allowing such a tragedy would be party to nothing less than judicial murder.

    Featured image via YouTube

    By Tom Coburg

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • By Arieta Vakasukawaqa in Suva

    FijiFirst party general secretary Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum claims they are fighting The Fiji Times and Communications Fiji Ltd — not political parties — in the lead up to the 2022 general election.

    He said this while taking a swipe at The Times during a news conference this week at the FijiFirst party headquarters in Suva.

    Sayed-Khaiyum claimed the two media organisations were “always parroting” the People’s Alliance and the National Federation Party “without checking the facts”.

    “We are not fighting other political parties, we are fighting two mainstream media organisations — Fiji Times and CFL,” he said.

    “The Fijian public know that. This is why we have our live Facebook when we have conferences, because we don’t expect these people to do any justification in terms of what we are saying.

    “I urge you if you are serious about your profession and the organisation you work for, are independent, not just say ‘independent’.

    “The saying goes [that] the proof is in the eating of the pudding.

    Another attack on The Fiji Times
    Another attack on The Fiji Times by the Attorney-General . . . editor-in-chief Fred Wesley says “we’re doing our job”. Image: FT screenshot APR

    “We have a seen a continuous propagation by Fiji Times and by CFL, simply parroting whatever the PAP and NFP says without checking the facts; we have a very sad state of affairs today.”

    Sayed-Khaiyum cited as an example that when NFP reported the FijiFirst party to the Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption about placing a banner on the Civic Car Park, The Fiji Times continued to publish commentary from NFP general secretary Seni Nabou.

    “They have absolutely no idea of what due process means, they have absolutely no idea, neither Fiji Times nor does CFL have any idea what an independent process means.

    “They throw these words around, bending these words around, yet not understanding what [they] mean.”

    Fiji Times editor-in-chief Fred Wesley
    Fiji Times editor-in-chief Fred Wesley … “We are not here to make the government look good. We offer a platform for every party to voice their opinions.” Image: The Fiji Times

    Fiji Times editor-in-chief Fred Wesley responded that The Fiji Times was being attacked — “as usual” — for doing its job.

    “We strive for fair and balanced coverage of the news, especially now as political parties go into election mode,” he said.

    “Understandably the pressure is on the government to respond to statements by opposition parties. We offer them a platform to clarify issues and to make statements.

    We refer all opposition party criticism to the government for comment. The government rarely, if ever, replies.

    “We are not here to make the government look good. We offer a platform for every party to voice their opinions. Some choose to use it and some do not.”

    Arieta Vakasukawaqa is a Fiji Times reporter. Published with permission.

  • Mediasia Iafor

    New Zealand journalist and academic David Robie has covered the Asia-Pacific region for international media for more than four decades.

    An advocate for media freedom in the Pacific region, he is the author of several books on South Pacific media and politics, including an account of the French bombing of the Greenpeace flagship Rainbow Warrior in Auckland Harbour in 1985 — which took place while he was on the last voyage.

    In 1994 he founded the journal Pacific Journalism Review examining media issues and communication in the South Pacific, Asia-Pacific, Australia and New Zealand.

    The Mediasia “conversation” on Asia-Pacific issues in Kyoto, Japan. Image: Iafor screenshot APR

    He was also convenor of the Pacific Media Watch media freedom collective, which collaborates with Reporters Without Borders in Paris, France.

    Until he retired at Auckland University of Technology in 2020 as that university’s first professor in journalism and founder of the Pacific Media Centre, Dr Robie organised many student projects in the South Pacific such as the Bearing Witness climate action programme.

    He currently edits Asia Pacific Report and is one of the founders of the new Aotearoa New Zealand-based NGO Asia Pacific Media Network.

    In this interview conducted by Mediasia organising committee member Dr Nasya Bahfen of La Trobe University for this week’s 13th International Asian Conference on Media, Communication and Film that ended today in Kyoto, Japan, Professor Robie discusses a surge of disinformation and the challenges it posed for journalists in the region as they covered the covid-19 pandemic alongside a parallel “infodemic” of fake news and hoaxes.

    He also explores the global climate emergency and the disproportionate impact it is having on the Asia-Pacific.

    Paying a tribute to Pacific to the dedication and courage of Pacific journalists, he says with a chuckle: “All Pacific journalists are climate journalists — they live with it every day.”

    Challenges facing the Asia-Pacific media
    Challenges facing the Asia-Pacific media . . . La Trobe University’s Dr Nasya Bahfen and Asia Pacific Report’s Dr David Robie in conversation. Image: Iafor screenshot APR
  • BenarNews

    Philippine police have announced the arrest of a suspect in the killing of a radio journalist who was known for criticising President Ferdinand Marcos Jr and his immediate predecessor, Rodrigo Duterte.

    The suspect, identified as Joel Estorial, 39, gave himself up to the Philippine National Police (PNP) and Interior Secretary Benjamin Abalos and was charged with murder two weeks after seasoned radio broadcaster Percival Mabasa (also known as Percy Lapid) was gunned down in a suburb south of Manila, officials said.

    Estorial surrendered “out of fear for personal safety following public disclosure of … CCTV footage revealing his face during the incident and naming him as [a] primary person of interest,” according to a statement from Abalos’ office.

    “This is a major breakthrough. He made an extra-judicial confession, duly assisted by counsel,” Abalos said, adding that the suspect had named three other accomplices who were subjects of “intensive follow-up operations”.

    The gun used to shoot Mabasa was recovered and “positively linked to the crime scene” by the police forensics laboratory, according to the national police.

    Estoral confessed that five others had allegedly participated in the planning and killing of the broadcaster, but he only managed to identify three.

    Mabasa, who worked for DWBL radio station, was ambushed on October 3 as he drove his car toward a gated community in Las Pinas, a suburb in southern metro Manila. He was the latest in a long line of killings targeting members of the Philippine media.

    Motive remains unknown
    However, the motive for his murder remains unknown. Abalos did not answer reporters when they asked him about this on Tuesday.

    “Just give us a few more days. We have to get the mastermind, that’s very important. The investigation is ongoing right now, there are many more details. Let’s not jeopardise them,” he said.

    The suspect in custody was presented at the press briefing, where he spoke to reporters.

    Someone from inside the country’s main prison facility, whom Estoral did not identify, had ordered a hit on Mabasa, he said. He identified two brothers and a third man as fellow accomplices in the attack.

    “I was afraid and conscience-struck for the killing of Percy Lapid,” said a handcuffed Estorial, who wore a helmet and bullet-proof vest.

    “Our arrangement was for whoever got closest to Percy would be the one to fire the fatal shot, and I was in that position. I was threatened with death if I didn’t shoot Percy at that moment, so I did,” Estorial said.

    The team was paid 550,000 pesos (US$9300) for the hit, he told reporters.

    “I hope the family forgives me. I did not want to do it, I was just forced to do so,” he said.

    Family thank police
    Mabasa’s family issued a statement Tuesday thanking the police and saying they hoped his killing would not become just another statistic among murders of Filipino journalists dating back decades.

    “We hope this development leads to the identification, arrest and prosecution of the mastermind,” the family said.

    Filipino activists light candles in memory of killed radio journalist Percival Mabasa (also known as Percy Lapid) during a demonstration in Quezon City, Metro Manila, Oct. 4, 2022. [Basilio Sepe/BenarNews]

    The Southeast Asian nation ranks among the most dangerous countries for journalists worldwide. Dozens have been killed with impunity since the dictatorship of Marcos’ late father, Ferdinand E. Marcos, more than 36 years ago.

    Mabasa’s commentaries were often bold and sharp as he sought to counter fake news spread on air as well as on social media. He had also hit out against a perceived attempt by supporters of the Marcos family to distort history and had been bitingly critical of the war on drugs by Marcos’ predecessor, Rodrigo Duterte, which left thousands dead. During his six years in office, Duterte had said journalists were fair game if they were corrupt.

    The Duterte administration worked to close down broadcaster ABS-CBN Corp. and convict Maria Ressa, the chief executive of the news website Rappler who was later named a co-recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize, on cyber libel charges.

    Jeoffrey Maitem and Mark Navales in Cotabato City, southern Philippines, and Basilio Sepe in Manila contributed to this report.

  • Pacific Media Watch

    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.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • By David Robie

    A human rights advocate appealed tonight for people in Aotearoa New Zealand to take personal responsibility in the fight against disinformation and to upskill their critical thinking skills.

    Anjum Rahman, project lead of the Inclusive Aotearoa Collective Tāhono, said this meant taking responsibility for verifying the accuracy and source of information before passing it on and not fuelling hate and misunderstanding.

    “Our democracy is very fragile,” she warned while delivering the annual David Wakim Memorial Lecture 2022 with the theme “Protecting Democracy in an Online World” at Parnell’s Jubilee Building.

    She said communities were facing challenging and rapidly changing times with climate change, conflicts, inflation and the ongoing pandemic.

    “If our democracy fails, all those other things fail as well,” she said.

    “And for those of us who are more vulnerable it is a matter of life and death.

    “Who most stand to lose their freedom if democracy fails? Who will be on the frontline to be exterminated?”

    Rahman is co-chair of the Christchurch Call Advisory Network and a member of the Independent Advisory Committee of the Global Internet Forum for Countering Terrorism.

    Argued strongly for diversity
    As an advocate, she has argued strongly for many years in support of diversity and inclusion and in 2019 was made a member of the New Zealand Order of Merit.

    On the third anniversary of the 15 March 2019 mosque massacre, she wrote in a column for The SpinOff that “we don’t need any more empty platitudes of sorrow . . . we need firm action and strong resolve. Across the board.”


    The David Wakim Memorial Lecture 2022.                      Video: Billy Hania

    The recommendations of the Royal Commission of Inquiry were more critical now than ever, and absolutely urgent, she wrote.

    “In a world that feels chaotic, with war, rising prices, anger and hate expressed in protests across the world, our hearts seek a certainty that isn’t there.

    “We need more urgency, and in many areas. I’m still disappointed with the Counter-Terrorism legislation passed last year, granting greater powers without evidence of any benefit. Hate speech legislation has been delayed, and we await a full review and overhaul of the national security system.”

    A founding member of the Islamic Women’s Council of New Zealand, Rahman gave a wide-ranging address tonight on the online challenges for democracy, and answered a host of questions from the audience of about 100.

    “I’m really worried about trolls,” said one. “They affect government, they influence voters, they have an impact on all sorts of decision making – what can be done about it?”

    Rahman replied that it was very difficult question – “I wish there was a simple answer.”

    The audience at tonight's Pax Christi-hosted David Wakim Memorial Lecture 2022
    The audience at tonight’s Pax Christi-hosted David Wakim Memorial Lecture 2022 at Parnell’s Jubilee Building. Image: David Robie/APR

    Removing troll incentives
    She said there needed to be more education and greater awareness of the activities of trolls and the sort of social media platforms they operated on.

    One problem was that the more attention paid trolls got, it often meant the more money they were getting.

    A challenge was to remove the incentive being given to them.

    Award-winning cartoonist Malcolm Evans asked Rahman what her response was to the global situation “right now” with the invasion of Ukraine where people were “under intense pressure to vilify the Russians . . . treating them as ‘evil’.”

    He added that “we live in a time that is probably the most dangerous that I have experienced in my lifetime … we are facing an Armageddon and I blame the media for that.

    “It’s a disgrace.”

    This led to a discussion by Pax Christi Aotearoa’s Janfrie Wakim about how Evans lost his job as a cartoonist on The New Zealand Herald in 2003 for “naming Israeli apartheid” over the repression of Palestinians to the loud applause of the audience.

    ‘Quality journalism’ paywalls
    In a discussion about media, Rahman said she was disturbed by the failures of the media business model that meant increasingly “quality journalism” was being placed behind paywalls while the public that could not afford paywalls were being served “poor quality” information.

    Introducing Anjum Rahman, Pax Christi’s Susan Healy said how “especially delighted the Wakim whanau were” that she had agreed to give the lecture.

    David Wakim was the inaugural president of Pax Christi Aotearoa, an independent section of Pax Christi International, a Catholic organisation founded in France at the end of World War Two committed to working “to transform a world shaken by violence, terrorism, deepening inequalities, and global insecurity”.

    Growing up in a Sydney Catholic family, Wakim was an advocate of interfaith dialogue. His travels in Muslim countries strengthened his links with the three faiths of Abraham – Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

    He helped establish the Council of Christians and Muslims in Auckland, but was especially committed to Palestinian rights.

    Wakim died in 2005 and the annual lecture honours his and Pax Christi’s mahi for Tiriti o Waitangi, interfaith dialogue, peace education, human rights and restorative justice.

    Anjum Rahman addressing the Pax Christi-hosted David Wakim Memorial Lecture 2022
    Anjum Rahman addressing the Pax Christi-hosted David Wakim Memorial Lecture 2022 tonight. Image: Billy Hania video screenshot/APR
  • By Jairo Bolledo in Manila

    The Philippines Court of Appeals has denied the motion for reconsideration filed by Nobel Peace Prize laureate and Rappler CEO Maria Ressa and former Rappler researcher Reynaldo Santos Jr. over their cyber libel case.

    In a 16-page decision dated October 10, the court’s fourth division denied the appeal.

    Associate Justices Roberto Quiroz, Ramon Bato Jr., and Germano Francisco Legaspi signed the ruling. They were the same justices who signed the court decision, which earlier affirmed the conviction of Ressa and Santos.

    According to the court, the arguments raised by Ressa and Santos were already resolved.

    “A careful and meticulous review of the motion for reconsideration reveals that the matters raised by the accused-appellants had already been exhaustively resolved and discussed in the assailed Decision,” the court said.

    The court also claimed Ressa’s and Santos’ conviction is not meant to curtail freedom of speech.

    “In conclusion, it [is] worthy and relevant to point out that the conviction of the accused-appellants for the crime of cyberlibel punishable under the Cybercrime Law is not geared towards the curtailment of the freedom of speech, or to produce an unseemingly chilling effect on the users of cyberspace that would possibly hinder free speech.”

    ‘Safeguard’ for free speech
    On the contrary, the court said, the purpose of the law is to “safeguard the right of free speech, and to curb, if not totally prevent, the reckless and unlawful use of the computer systems as a means of committing the traditional criminal offences…”

    In a statement, Nobel Peace laureate Ressa said she was “disappointed” but not surprised by the ruling.


    Rappler’s video report on YouTube.

    “The ongoing campaign of harassment and intimidation against me and Rappler continues, and the Philippines legal system is not doing enough to stop it. I am disappointed by today’s ruling but sadly not surprised,” Ressa said.

    “This is a reminder of the importance of independent journalism holding power to account. Despite these sustained attacks from all sides, we continue to focus on what we do best — journalism.”

    Santos, in a separate statement, said he still believed that the rule of law would prevail.

    “The [Appeal Court’s] decision to deny our motion is not surprising, but it’s disheartening nevertheless. As we elevate our case to the SC, our fight against intimidation and suppression of freedom continues. We still believe that the rule of law will prevail.”

    Theodore “Ted” Te, Rappler’s lawyer and former Supreme Court spokesperson, said they would now ask the Supreme Court to review and reverse Ressa’s conviction.

    “The CA decision denying the MFR [motion for reconsideration] is disappointing. It ignored basic principles of constitutional and criminal law as well as the evidence presented. Maria and Rey will elevate these issues to the SC and we will ask the SC to review the decision and to reverse the decision,” Te said in a statement.

    The decision
    The Appeal Court also explained its findings on the arguments based on:

    • Applications of the provisions of cyber libel under the cybercrime law
    • Subject article should have been classified as qualifiedly privileged” in relation to Wilfredo Keng as a public figure

    On the validity of the cybercrime law, the court cited a ruling which, according to them, decided the constitutionality of the law.

    “We find it unnecessary to dwell on the issue raised by accused-appellants since the Supreme Court, in Jose Jesus M. Disini, Jr., et al., v. The Secretary of Justice, et al. (Disini Case), 5 had already ruled on its validity and constitutionality, with finality.”

    The court also reiterated that the story in question was republished. The court said the argument that ex-post facto was applied on the theory that the correction of one letter is too unsubstantial and cannot be considered a republication is “unavailing.”

    “As settled, the determination of republication is not hinged on whether the corrections made therein were substantial or not, as what matters is that the very exact libelous article was again published on a later date,” the appeals court said.

    On the increase of penalty, the CA said the argument that Wilberto Tolentino v. People has no doctrinal value and cannot be used as a binding precedent as it was “an unsigned resolution, is misplaced.”

    That case said the “prescriptive period for the crime of cyber libel is 15 years.”

    Traditional, online publications
    The appeals court also highlighted the difference between traditional and online publications: “As it is, in the instance of libel through traditional publication, the libelous article is only released and circulated once – which is on the day when it was published.”

    Such was not the case for an online publication, the court said, where “the commission of such offence is continuous since such article remains therein in perpetuity unless taken down from all online platforms where it was published…”

    On the argument about Keng, the CA said it was insufficient to consider him a public figure: “As previously settled, the claim that Wilfredo Keng is a renowned businessman, who was connected to several companies, is insufficient to classify him as a public figure.”

    The term “public figure” in relation to libel refers more to a celebrity, it said, citing the Ciriaco “Boy” Guingguing v. Honorable Court of Appeals decision. The decision said a public figure is “anyone who has arrived at a position where public attention is focused upon him as a person.”

    It also cited the Supreme Court decision on Alfonso Yuchengco v. The Manila Chronicle Publishing Corporation, et al., which resolved the argument whether a businessman can be considered a public figure. The court said that being a known businessman did not make Keng a public figure who had attained a position that gave the public “legitimate interest in his affairs and character.”

    There was no proof, too, that “he voluntarily thrusted himself to the forefront of the particular public controversies that were raised in the defamatory article,” the CA added.

    In 2020, Manila Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 46 convicted Ressa and Santos over cyber libel charges filed by Keng. The case tested the 8-year-old Philippine cybercrime law.

    The Manila court interpreted the cyber libel law as having a 12-year proscription period, as opposed to only a year. The lower court also decided that republication was a separate offence.

    Aside from affirming the Manila court’s ruling, the CA also imposed a longer prison sentence on Ressa and Santos, originally set for six months and one day as minimum to six years as maximum.

    The appeals court added eight months and 20 days to the maximum imprisonment penalty.

    Jairo Bolledo is a Rappler journalist. Republished with permission.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.