(in)security?

Act of (in)security?

In the case of non-citizens, it can mean deportation and a bar on re-entry; • the law is meant to prevent acts of terrorism against the state and to safe guard against the setting up of illegal groups such as the Bougainville Revol utionary Army; • the law provides for fines of up to K 10,000 and/or jail terms of up to seven years for members of the organisation the NEC considers to be terrorist groups and for people who provide any kind of aid to such groups. • Anyone displaying support for the activities of such groups by wearing any item of dress or carrying articles of such kind as to arouse “resonable apprehen sion” that he is a member of an Drganisation involved in terrorist activi :ies, is also guilty of an offence and can 3e fined up to K 10,000 or jailed for up :o three years.

Other supplementary laws proposed include amendments to the Bail Act,

Criminal Code Act, Dangerous Drugs

Firearms Act, Police Act and iummary Offences Act. The Repatri ition Act will provide for the setting up if Repatriation Courts to order people lack to their home provinces if they do ot have any visible means of support nd who are likely to turn to crime, will order people to stay in the illages for a specified period. The Bail ict provides for only the national court grant bail, not the lower courts.

The Criminal Code is to be amended ) that police will not need warrants to lake arrests for prescribed offences, [eavier penalties for drug use and □ssessing and use of firearms will be

aposed under the Dangerous Drugs and

irearms Act. In July, the government so approved for ratification by parlia ent two new proposed laws that all apua New Guineans be issued identifi ition cards and that onus of proof be versed so that people charged for fences as serious as rape, murder or med robbery are automatically guilty id have to prove their innocence unlike >w where one is innocent until proven yond resonable doubt that they are lilty.

Said police minister Avusi Tanao icn he introduced these measures; hjs government is talking about a isible approach to law and order.”

Prime minister Wingti said of his govern ment’s total law and order package that it was a comprehensive approach to the problem which was making all sectors of the society “sick to death”. Said Wingti - “The crime problem facing us war rants drastic action. The proposed con stitutional changes are part of our commitment to making these important changes. We will not stop here. Our directions are quite clear to our law enforcement agencies to implement all the laws we have changed, and all the laws that we will change in the future.”

Amet’s predecessor Sir Buri Kidu, after keeping silent, spoke out against the Internal Security Act and related bills the moment he was replaced. He said the Act would cause chaos in the commun ity, the judiciary and the country as a whole. There would be human rights abuses, innocent people would be jailed and people’s movements would be re stricted, he summed. “This is a very dangerous trend and would work against the people,” he said.

Chief ombudsman Charles Maino sounded the biggest warning when he said it would create civil unrest when people’s lives are being frustrated. He described the laws as being “stupid” and “unconstitutional”. Maino instructed his lawyers to challenge the Internal Secur ity Act during the Supreme Court’s October hearing. “In my view the Act is unconstitutional; it is stupid to say the least,” he said. “If our leaders abuse their powers then the people may be frustrated and go up in arms to protect themselves.

Civil unrest will then become our daily event because people will be fighting for

their rights.”

Opposition to the laws came from all sectors of the community, and from Amnesty International and Australian , Belgium and Canadian lawyers and even a judge of the PNG national court. On the shifting of onus of proof, Judge Brown said in a letter to the Post-Courier newspaper; “I write to sound a warning to the executive arm of government now apparently considering the proposal, by academic advisers, to change the consti tution by doing away with the presump tion of innocence in serious criminal cases. An American, Thomas Jefferson said that all men are created equal but we know that not to be the case. Some

people have more opportunities than others, some are smarter and some accumulate riches more easily than others. The constitutional imperative to treat all men as equal is acted upon by all our courts (while recognising this reality), by applying this presumption of innocence. But this proposal may work to the contrary if the change is carried by parliament. A class of people will be created who will not have the protection the present constitution affords them.

The under-class, I venture to say, will not be the rich and famous but ordinary Papua New Guineans who may not be as smart as some. The change will condone an injustice. It reflects an impatience and arrogance in the proposals to seek efficiency in the pursuit of order to the detriment of justice for all. This wish of the academic ignores to my mind, the morality of its methods for by undermin ing the precept, that “all men are equal before the law” the conscience of all Papua New Guineans must be unsettled.

I ask the executive and all parliamen tarians to look to their conscience in this matter, for the proposal is fraught with risk.”

Philip George Scales, an Adelaide lawyer in a letter to Chief Justice Amet said there was considerable concern that the provisions of the Act were likely to lead to human rights violations occur ing.” He quoted Amnesty International as saying “The Act will be virtually impossible to ensure that human rights are properly safeguarded. He said Am nesty was concerned by the broad definition of what constitutes support for terrorism under the Act and by sweeping powers for arrest and detention it confers upon the security forces. It said it believed the Act could all too easily be applied to restrict or repress inter nationally recognised rights to freedom of expression and association.

“The new legislation grants the head of state power to ban organisations which are, in his opinion, ‘prompting or encouraging, o£ (are) likely to or about to promote or encourage terrorism’, Scales said.

“Likewise, individuals alleged by the government to support banned organis ations or who display support in a public place may be subjected to terms of three to seven years imprisonment. Appeals against the banning of an organisation can only be addressed to the head of state and national executive council the bodies which issued the decrees and not to an independent judicial authority.

Most worrying, a document signed by the police commissioner certifying that an individual is a member of a prescribed organisation constitutes prima facie evi dence of membership of the organisation.

“The government has said that the Act is necessary to combat law and order Droblems. But the Act specifically defines terrorism’ as including the use of violence for political ends. Amnesty

International is concerned that the vague language used to describe support for or encouragement of “terrorism” may perrange ° nnterpretation the “When vague terms such as these are employed, the risk of the law being invoked to suppress non-violent political dissent is greaty increased,” said the organisation. It added that “in any case, problems of criminality can never justify the application of laws which may lead to human rights violations.

“The act also gives the police powers to arrest without warrant and detain suspects without charge for a period oflO days, renewable for a further 10 days.

Amnesty said that the long experience of security legislation in countries such as South Africa, Malaysia and Northern Ireland had shown that when the security forces had power to detain tXdonr thOU s\rh ar f e 7 r 1 ’ fUrth |T rr l uch as tortu T, or |U treatment - frequently occur.

The Act was rushed through parliamem in May. However, since some provisions of the Act restrict consti-

tutional rights, a parliamentary majority

agreeing each provision is required

before the proposed legislation becomes law. Amnesty International is urging the government to reassess as a matter of priority the terms and provisions of the Act and to ensure that any national security legislation refers only to

recognisably criminal offences and does not violate the rights to freedom of opinion, belief, expression or association.

Amnesty said: “It is alarming that as the world gathers in Vienna to discuss

increasing safeguards for human rights

the PNG authorities are planning to remove existing safeguards, thereby po tentially undermining the rights of their citizens. Many of those gathered at Vienna are themselves survivors of hu man rights violations; some were victims of internal security legislation in other countries and could provide eloquent testimony of the ways in which such legislation has been used to suppress basic freedoms; and of how it has resulted in torture and ill-treatment.”

Opposition leader Jack Genia, who died recently, described it as an ill conceived Act thrown together in haste.

“The Act is a confusing bundle of ad hoc knee-jerk reaction to a major national problem. The ISA is suppressive, repress ive and inhuman and its constitutional validity is open to question. It is already receiving widespread criticism,” he said.

Opposition frontbencher John Momis said it was “draconian” and a move towards dictatorial rule and could be used against political opponents. Momis’ fellow Melanesia Alliance politician Bernard Narakobi said it restricted freedom of movement guaranteed under the constitution. The PNG Trade Union Congress, the umbrella body of all

workers unions in PNG, said it was a “cut-throat” Act designed to cut off

democracy and deprive the people of

PNG their rights to freedom.

Of ID cards, general secretary John Paska said it would be a costly and impractical exercise which would im prison Papua New Guineans in their own country. “It reduces Papua New Guin ean status to that of dogs who have to go around with tags on,” he said The Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace said that the proposal to shift the burden of proof from the prosecution to the defendant and the question of ID cards went against the fundamental rights of the citizens. Perhaps a better approach to the issue of law and order is one former prime minister Rabbie Namaliu called for in a recent address to a technical school in Port Moresby. He spoke of instilling personal discipline to children so that they learn to grow up with respect for themselves, others and their country. “I believe the lack of personal discipline is a major problem in this nation today,” he told students.

“Too many people think that freedom means doing exactly what you want, without thinking what it might do to others. Stop and think. If you agree that everyone should be free, then what about about the people who suffer because you are not self-disciplined.” “You cannot allow your freedom to take away some body else’s freedom. So personal respon sibility calls for personal discipline. □