Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback Vanuatu Ombudsman's Reports

Complaint against the Immigration Department [1996] VUOM 5; 1996.06 (10 October 1996)

REPUBLIC OF VANUATU

OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN

PUBLIC REPORT

COMPLAINT AGAINST THE IMMIGRATION DEPARTMENT CONCERNING A
WOMAN WHOM THE IMMIGRATION DEPARTMENT ATTEMPTED TO
PREVENT LEAVING THE COUNTRY

10 October 1996

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PREAMBLE

1 INTRODUCTION

2 JURISDICTION AND SCOPE OF ENQUIRY

3 RELEVANT LAWS

4 METHOD OF INVESTIGATION

5 FINDINGS OF FACTS

6 FINDINGS OF WRONG CONDUCT AND MALADMINISTRATION PRACTICES

7 RECOMMENDATIONS

8 CONCLUSION

APPENDIX A

Reply from Mr Tofo, Immigration Officer

APPENDIX B

Reply from Mr Bovenga, Immigration Officer.

_______________________________________

COMPLAINT AGAINST THE IMMIGRATION DEPARTMENT CONCERNING A
WOMAN WHOM THE IMMIGRATION DEPARTMENT ATTEMPTED TO
PREVENT LEAVING THE COUNTRY

PUBLIC REPORT

PREAMBLE

"... Therefore have I also made you contemptible and base before all the people, according as ye have not kept my ways, but have been partial in the law ..." Malachi 2 v 9

In this investigation into a complaint of violation of an individual citizen’s fundamental right, a clear exposure appears of the misuse of official powers by the Immigration Office/Principal Immigration Officer in order to victimise an innocent member of the public.

The Principal Immigration Officer concerned, François Batik ("Mr Batick"), clearly acted outside his powers by instructing his subordinates to take illegal action to prevent the complainant from undertaking a journey by air of which her husband disapproved. Mr Batik was not impartial in this matter and clearly approved of the husband’s illegal request to interfere in his wife’s fundamental constitutional right of free movement.

There will also no doubt be questions arising in the public’s mind as to whether a Minister or official would have acted in this way against a husband at a wife’s request.

This matter provides yet another illustration of an attitude which emerges time after time in my investigations - namely a wrong impression held by officials and leaders that public office can be legally used to grant improper favours to friends, colleagues or relatives.

This of course, is not a tradition approved by the Biblical leaders, who clearly condemned the practice or being partial, instead of honest and just. This incident, though small in itself, constitutes a grave warning of what can happen when leaders fail to be guided by sound and proved principles of justice and fairness.