N11509
PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

HROI NO. 06 OF 2025

IN THE MATTER OF ENFORCEMENT OF BASIC RIGHTS
UNDER SECTION 57 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF
THE INDEPENDENT STATE OF PAPUA NEW GUINEA

RE: TRIBAL FIGHTING IN WAPENAMANDA
AND ITS IMPACT ON THE WORK OF THE NATIONAL COURT
AND THE EDUCATION OF CHILDREN

WABAG: ELLIS J
1, 7 OCTOBER 2025

HUMAN RIGHTS – Tribal fighting in Wapenamanda – Compliance with earlier orders – Focus now on peace process

Cases cited
No cases are cited in these reasons.

Counsel
No counsel attend the hearing on 1st October 2025

REASONS

1.	ELLIS J:   These are the reasons why a further order was made in this matter on Wednesday 1 October 2025.  The wording of that order was as set out below:

“The Provincial Administrator is to arrange for a report to be submitted to the Court on or before Friday 10 October 2025 by Chairman of the Law and Order Committee setting out:

(1)	the progress that has been made, and 
(2)	what remains to be done;

to achieve a peaceful settlement of the tribal disputes in Wapenamanda District that have adversely impacted on law and order in that District.”

Additional evidence

2.	The Court received evidence from (1) a lawyer, Mr Yapao, (2) a Police officer, and (3) the Hon Mikki Kaeok, the Member for Wapenamanda Open and the Minister for Transport and Works.

3.	In an affidavit that became Exhibit 22, Mr Yapao set out what he contended was the history up to and including 19 August 2025 and suggested what orders the Court should make.  That included a suggestion that all Engan MPS, including Governor Ipatas, should be required to give evidence of what they have been doing to solve the law-and-order issue in Enga Province.

4.	A police officer indicated that the rocks and roadblocks had been removed from the highway in Wapenamanda, that the tribal fighting had ceased, that people had been able to attend church the previous weekend, that the local Christian radio station had re-opened, that offensive weapons were not being carried, and that a curfew was in place. 

5.	The evidence of the Member for Wapenamanda Open added little to the issues now under consideration although his involvement in the peace process will clearly be necessary.

Consideration

6.	To the extent that Mr Yapao set out what he maintained had occurred in Wapenamanda, that is no longer relevant.  The Court does not consider it a productive exercise to try to determine who or what caused the tribal conflict.  Indeed, seeking to identify the cause(s) may hinder any peace process as that may be seen to attribute blame.  What is now before the Court is not how or why the tribal fighting in Wapenamanda started but how it can come to an end.  The suggestion that all MPs from Enga Province be called to give evidence overlooks the fact that the subject matter now under consideration is not the law and order situation throughout Enga Province but is instead confined to tribal violence in Wapenamanda.

7.	As the subsequent evidence from a police officer suggested that the situation had been brought under control, the court does not see any need for any further orders designed to prevent a recurrence of tribal violence in Wapenamanda.

8.	Having previously (1) determined that there were breaches of the rights provided by the Constitution, (2) received evidence of the effects of those breaches, and (3) having made orders intended to address those breaches, the focus of the Court should move from seeking to end the waging of war to seeking to advance the pursuit of peace.  That is because a peaceful settlement of the issues is the best way to prevent further breaches of the rights provided by the Constitution.

9.	The Court needs to exercise caution in this matter because (1) it is not the role of the Court to usurp the role of the Police, but to aid the Police in their work, (2) there may be civil proceedings arising out of the tribal violence in Wapenamanda that will require a decision to be made by this Court, and (3) there have already been criminal charges and may be further criminal charges arising out of what has occurred in Wapenamanda which have required and may in future require the Court’s consideration.

10.	As a result, a reasonable period should be allowed for a pathway to peace to be developed.  It is clearly preferable to have a report provided by a neutral party.  For that reason, the Court decided that it should make no further order at this stage other than to require the provision of a report from the Chairman of the Law and Order Committee within a period of about two weeks.

Order Accordingly.
__________________________________________________________________
Lawyers for the Member for Wapenamanda Open: Minok & Company Lawyers
Lawyers for the Provincial Administrator: Gibson Bon Lawyers