A lawyer gets justice, at last

Hunted and hounded for the last five years, former Solomon Islands Attorney General Julian Moti (QC) is broken but a free man.

In the aftermath, the episode left the Australian claim of being a model democracy and the Australian Federal Police as one that cannot be trusted for impartiality in tatters.

It is a deeply worrying revelation that has also brought the Australian mainstream media into focus on its claim of being independent, impartial and a great protector and defender of people’s rights.

Its eloquence in highlighting this case was matched with a deafening silence or voices that were clearly inaudible or incoherent.

Mr Moti earned the unexpected ire of the Australian Government leading to his trial in the Brisbane Supreme Court of Brisbane. The trial revealed the machinations of the Federal Government in promoting its interests, defying international norms and conventions and brutally attempting to subvert the cause of justice.

However, Mr Moti succeeded after an expensive court battle, when Justice Debra Mullins granted a permanent stay of proceedings on December 17, citing payments to witnesses by the Australian Federal Police, the quantum being “an affront to the public conscience.”

An accomplished man

Mr Moti is no ordinary person. His academic credentials include arts and law degrees from Australian universities. He was the Adjunct Professor at the Bond University, Queensland, and taught law and finance in several countries. Prior to his appointment as the Solomon Islands Attorney General, he was a Visiting Professorial Fellow at two Indian universities.

He is articulate, suave, intelligent, independent and daring. He stood his ground and refused to be bullied by the Australian Government or the Police. Not many would have resisted the State-sponsored persecution and his victory provided the world an opportunity to see the two faces of Australia – one that is iniquitous and the other pretentious of being a great advocate of freedom and rights of its own people.    

Subversive tactics        

The Australian Government was peeved when it came to its notice in 2004 that the Solomon Islands Government was considering the appointment of Mr Moti as the Attorney General. In October that year, Australian High Commissioner Patrick Cole informed his Government that Mr Moti had an anti-Australian and anti- Regional Assistance Mission to Solomon Islands (RAMSI) perspective and that his appointment would jeopardize Australian interests, including granting of legal amnesties and pardons.

It came to light that in 2004, the Australian Federal Police pursued a case under Australia’s extra-territorial child sex tourism laws, at the instigation of Mr Cole, expecting such action to ultimately derail Mr Moti’s appointment.

Canberra dissuaded the then Solomon Islands Prime Minister Sir Allan Kemakezea (in 2005) from appointing Mr Moti but the position became vacant again in the following year, when the Judicial and Legal Services Commission cancelled the appointment of the incumbent Attorney General Primo Afeau, who lost his case in court.

Mr Moti was appointed Attorney-General in 2006, much to the chagrin of Australia, sparking the great Australian conspiracy and manhunt that now reads like a movie script.

Interestingly, Mr Moti was in India when his appointment was announced. It followed a swift Australian Government response that requested India to extradite Mr Moti, who was on his way to the Solomon Islands. He was arrested in Port Moresby but sought and was granted refuge at the Solomon Islands High Commission. A few days later, he was transported by a Papua New Guinea Defence Force plane to an island, from whence he made it to Honiara, the capital city.

A bizarre case

Incensed, the Australian Government accused Papua New Guinea of complicity and banned that country’s ministers from travelling to Australia. Prime Minister Michael Somare denied complicity and ordered an inquiry to appease Australia.

Canberra declared Mr Moti a fugitive and a man wanted in Australia on serious sex-related charges, ignoring the fact that the Vanuatu courts had dismissed the case in 1999.

The case involved a 13-year-old Tahitian girl in Port Vila, Vanuatu in 1997 where Mr Moti had a legal practice. It was thrown out for lack of credible evidence. A bizarre claim made by the complainant was that the accused had three testicles, which was subsequently disproved on medical examination.

The decision of the court could not be dismissed lightly, as it was conducted under the supervision of New Zealand Law Commission President Bruce Robertson, Australian Human Rights Commission President John Von Doussa and Fiji Chief Justice Daniel Fatiaki.

Interestingly, the complainant, who had withdrawn the allegations that she was raped and beaten but renewed them, the reasons for which became more explicable later.

While Mr Moti said that he was exonerated through due process of law, the Australian Government claimed that it had new evidence after interviews with witnesses and the alleged victim who had by then turned 21.

It was unusual that the Australian Government that showed little interest in the case between 1999 (when the Vanuatu Court dismissed the case) and 2006 (when Mr Moti was appointed Attorney General), had a sudden desire to arrest Mr Moti and retry him in an Australian court. Mr Sogavare ignored repeated requests for his extradition.

The relationship between the two governments reached its lowest point when Mr Cole was declared persona non grata by the Solomon’s government, saying that he was interfering in the affairs of the country. Mr Sogavare came under the radar of Australian conspiracy and his position became insecure with divisive politics.

Annoying practices

The Australian Federal Police indulged in practices that would annoy any government that upheld freedom, rights and justice for its people. In October 2007, while Mr Sogavare was in Fiji to attend the Pacific Islands Forum meeting, the Solomon Islands police, headed by Shane Castles of Australia, raided the Prime Minister’s office and seized a fax machine used for sending documents authorising Mr Moti to enter the country without the required documents.

Following this raid, Mr Castles was relieved of his duties.

The raid, as it turned out, was unnecessary as Mr. Sogavare said he would have provided the documents, if only the Australian Government had asked for them. But following a vote of no confidence, he lost his position, exposing Mr Moti to the packs that bundled him to Brisbane, where the Supreme Court charged him for the alleged offences. It was here that the Police was fully exposed, which culminated in Justice Mullins issuing a permanent stay of proceedings in favour of Mr Moti.

Patrick O’Connor, a journalist for the World Socialist Web, who covered the proceedings, wrote, “The alleged victim was not the complainant in the case. The Australian Federal Police located her and took a statement in 2006. From this point onwards, she and her family received staggering amounts of money from the Police.

“On numerous occasions they threatened to withdraw their cooperation unless the payments were increased.

“While the Commonwealth has still not provided a full account of the precise total sums handed over from 2006 to 2009, the Queensland Supreme Court received documents indicating that at least A$150,000 changed hands.

“This covered the family’s various living expenses, including rental, medical, childcare, education, and transport costs, as well as for their domestic servant, restaurant visits, and business ventures.”

Affront to public conscience

In her 30-page judgment, Justice Mullins said, “The conduct of the Australian Federal Police in taking over the financial support of those witnesses who live in Vanuatu is an affront to the public conscience.”

She also noted that “The Police has assumed the role of providing full financial support to sustain the lifestyle and activities of the complainant’s family in Vanuatu”

The court also heard that the minimum wage in Vanuatu was just $A240 a month, or $A2880 a year. Justice Mullins said there was “no justification” for the police claim that its payments were “subsistence” living expenses.

Critics said Justice Mullins, in damage control, avoided the term “bribing of witnesses” or accepting that the charges were politically motivated but evidence adduced during the proceedings could not be anything but blatant bribing of witnesses to achieve a clear political objective.

Many observers hold the view that if those involved escaped investigation and punishment, then the complicity of the Australian Government cannot be ignored.

Mr Moti told the World Socialist Web Site: “I was cleared by the courts in Vanuatu in 1999. That decision still stands. The attempt of the Australian Federal Police to dredge up these unfounded allegations through massive witness bribery has been recognised as an outrageous abuse of process.

“The question not fully answered by the court is why the police resorted to these scandalous tactics. The answer, I would suggest, on the basis of all the material which the Commonwealth possesses but has not been disclosed, lies in the political motive behind my prosecution. This was instigated by the Australian High Commission and the Foreign Affairs and Trade Department for vigorous pursuit by the Police in service of Australia’s geo-strategic political objectives.

“I have asked my lawyers to refer the conduct of the Australian Federal Police to the Commonwealth Ombudsman, the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity, and the Commonwealth Auditor General. I await the investigation of this matter.”

Rajendra Prasad is the author of Tears in Paradise – Suffering and Struggles of Indians in Fiji 1879-2004 and our columnist. Email: raj.prasad@xtra.co.nz

The above is the edited version. For full text, visit www.indiannewslink.co.nz