SUPPRESSED!
National Editorial
William Kapris Nanua is a jail escapee and a suspected robber.
He might be credited with having masterminded two bank robberies and a break-in at a gold refining facility, but he is nobody special.
He is just one more suspected criminal and deserves to face the full brunt of the criminal justice system of this country.
The law does not distinguish between a good or a bad criminal, or an important and a less important one. It defines crimes against the state and society and prescribes punishment.
It is only the administrators of the justice system, the judges, the magistrates, the lawyers and the law enforcers in the Royal PNG Constabulary and Correctional Services who allow human feelings to enter the law and its interpretation.
Banning journalists from covering Kapris’ court case means information and truth cannot be told to our readers.
We must caution all parties involved in this criminal trial, particularly the administrators of justice, that there must be no special privileges. There can be no extra special treatment.
A felon is a felon, whatever his crime.
Kapris deserves a fair trial and, if found guilty of the crimes he is charged with, and which he has reportedly admitted freely to committing outside of court, then he deserves the full brunt of the law and nothing else.
So, why the hype?
Already we smell bias in the visits to this criminal suspect’s high security prison cell by the head of the CS, senior police officers, the former attorney-general, two other ministers and an MP.
Whatever could they want from this person?
We certainly smell bias in the strange and secretive decision taken last week to bar the media from covering this trial.
Nobody is taking responsibility for the ban. Our journalists have only been turned back at the entrance to the courtrooms by the court security last Thursday, and again this week, that the media is barred from covering the trial.
We have since discovered that the application for the trial to be held in camera has been made by a senior state lawyer.
The application appears to have been granted by a court judge.
The public deserves to know the reasons for this ban and the attorney-general’s office has a public duty to explain the state lawyer’s actions. So, too, must the judge or whoever approved this ban.
There is no issue of a national security interest that we can see here which would warrant this sudden curbing of the people’s right to information and free speech.
We see no issue here so sensitive that publication of this trial might prejudice a fair and impartial trial.
What we do have an inkling about, and this is bizarre, is that the state might want to turn this William Kapris Nanua person into a state witness.
It has been mentioned a number of times in the past that this might happen but, if Kapris is to turn state witness, who does he witness against when he is said to be the kingpin himself.
Are we already taking a suspected criminal at his word that there are far bigger fish out there than himself?
Are we so gullible and most willing to let this giant tilapia already in the can go so we can search the wide ocean out there for the, as yet undetected, sharks because this fish says the sharks are really responsible?
Are there really sharks out there? If there are, should this not be the job of our police detectives to gather evidence and put together a watertight prosecution case?
Is the police force so incompetent that we must rely upon criminal suspects to assist in criminal investigations and to turn state witnesses?
This would appear to be what the state is working towards and this might well be the reason for all this secretive arrangements, including barring media coverage of the trial.
The actions of a senior state lawyer and the judge in granting the application sought to bar the media reflects upon the whole of government.
We call upon the new attorney-general, Ano Pala, to come out and tell us if this curbing of freedom to obtain and publicise information, which is in the public interest, has his blessing and, if so, what his reasons might be for them.
Pala will need to come clear on this because the actions of a senior state lawyer and the judge who granted the application to bar the media most assuredly reflect upon the government.
For our part, we can say that the media is no threat to the security of court officials, to Correctional Services personnel escorting prisoners or to the prisoners.
This suspected robber and serial escapee is public news.
Most of his views and interviews with the police is now public property, both here and abroad.
Unless an explanation can be forthcoming which is convincing, the barring of media from this trial is shallow, lacks wisdom and merit, and violates our inherent rights to freedom of information and the free press expressly granted under our Constitution.
We call upon all media organisations, the Media Council of PNG and concerned civil society organisations to vigorously oppose this ban.
He might be credited with having masterminded two bank robberies and a break-in at a gold refining facility, but he is nobody special.
He is just one more suspected criminal and deserves to face the full brunt of the criminal justice system of this country.
The law does not distinguish between a good or a bad criminal, or an important and a less important one. It defines crimes against the state and society and prescribes punishment.
It is only the administrators of the justice system, the judges, the magistrates, the lawyers and the law enforcers in the Royal PNG Constabulary and Correctional Services who allow human feelings to enter the law and its interpretation.
Banning journalists from covering Kapris’ court case means information and truth cannot be told to our readers.
We must caution all parties involved in this criminal trial, particularly the administrators of justice, that there must be no special privileges. There can be no extra special treatment.
A felon is a felon, whatever his crime.
Kapris deserves a fair trial and, if found guilty of the crimes he is charged with, and which he has reportedly admitted freely to committing outside of court, then he deserves the full brunt of the law and nothing else.
So, why the hype?
Already we smell bias in the visits to this criminal suspect’s high security prison cell by the head of the CS, senior police officers, the former attorney-general, two other ministers and an MP.
Whatever could they want from this person?
We certainly smell bias in the strange and secretive decision taken last week to bar the media from covering this trial.
Nobody is taking responsibility for the ban. Our journalists have only been turned back at the entrance to the courtrooms by the court security last Thursday, and again this week, that the media is barred from covering the trial.
We have since discovered that the application for the trial to be held in camera has been made by a senior state lawyer.
The application appears to have been granted by a court judge.
The public deserves to know the reasons for this ban and the attorney-general’s office has a public duty to explain the state lawyer’s actions. So, too, must the judge or whoever approved this ban.
There is no issue of a national security interest that we can see here which would warrant this sudden curbing of the people’s right to information and free speech.
We see no issue here so sensitive that publication of this trial might prejudice a fair and impartial trial.
What we do have an inkling about, and this is bizarre, is that the state might want to turn this William Kapris Nanua person into a state witness.
It has been mentioned a number of times in the past that this might happen but, if Kapris is to turn state witness, who does he witness against when he is said to be the kingpin himself.
Are we already taking a suspected criminal at his word that there are far bigger fish out there than himself?
Are we so gullible and most willing to let this giant tilapia already in the can go so we can search the wide ocean out there for the, as yet undetected, sharks because this fish says the sharks are really responsible?
Are there really sharks out there? If there are, should this not be the job of our police detectives to gather evidence and put together a watertight prosecution case?
Is the police force so incompetent that we must rely upon criminal suspects to assist in criminal investigations and to turn state witnesses?
This would appear to be what the state is working towards and this might well be the reason for all this secretive arrangements, including barring media coverage of the trial.
The actions of a senior state lawyer and the judge in granting the application sought to bar the media reflects upon the whole of government.
We call upon the new attorney-general, Ano Pala, to come out and tell us if this curbing of freedom to obtain and publicise information, which is in the public interest, has his blessing and, if so, what his reasons might be for them.
Pala will need to come clear on this because the actions of a senior state lawyer and the judge who granted the application to bar the media most assuredly reflect upon the government.
For our part, we can say that the media is no threat to the security of court officials, to Correctional Services personnel escorting prisoners or to the prisoners.
This suspected robber and serial escapee is public news.
Most of his views and interviews with the police is now public property, both here and abroad.
Unless an explanation can be forthcoming which is convincing, the barring of media from this trial is shallow, lacks wisdom and merit, and violates our inherent rights to freedom of information and the free press expressly granted under our Constitution.
We call upon all media organisations, the Media Council of PNG and concerned civil society organisations to vigorously oppose this ban.
I FEEL SORRY FOR YOUR COUNTRY!!!!!!!!!
ReplyDelete