FRC HEARING ON THE FACILITATION OF INTERNATIONAL ASSISTANCE INQUIRY

Wednesday 29 October 2008
________________________________________________

Mr Chairman:  Mr. George Hiele, Permanent Secretary for the Ministry of Police, National Security, Mr. James Remobatu, Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Justice, Legal Affairs, stakeholders and members of the public, welcome to today’s hearing and thank you very much for accepting our Committee’s invitation for your participation in our enquiry into and review matters relating to RAMSI.  Today, the Committee is taking evidence from various Permanent Secretaries with the view to hear the views of the top administrators of the Public Service on the administration and operations of RAMSI.  We hope that as accounting officers who deal with the every day interaction between RAMSI and your respective ministries, you would be able to contribute to our enquiry and assist our Committee to understand the relationship between RAMSI and the Solomon Islands Government on the ground.  We look forward to your input.
Before we start, I wish to remind you that what you say in this hearing is protected by parliamentary privilege.  Take note also that our proceedings today is being recorded by One News to be televised later and that the SIBC is also broadcasting these proceedings live. 
We now proceed with the hearing.  We will first hear a presentation from the witnesses before committees members ask any questions they wish to ask of the witness. 
Could I now ask the witnesses to please state your names for the record and to please proceed with your opening statements if you are wish?

George Hiele:  Thank you Mr. Chairman.  My name is George Hiele, and I’m the Permanent Secretary for the Ministry of Police, National Security and Correctional Services. 
Thank you Chairman and members of the Forum Relations Committee for giving me the opportunity to present before you on behalf of the Ministry of Police, National Security and Correctional Services to make some brief comments and suggestions to this enquiry into thee review of Facilitation of International Assistance Act 2003. 
My presentation will be very brief and covers the restoration of law and order and security, capacity building, proposed framework agreement between the Solomon Islands Government and RAMSI and the future of the partnership. 
I’ll start with the restoration and normalizing of law and order and security.  The Facilitation of the International Assistance Act provided for the Intervention of RAMSI in 2003, comprised of a contingent of the Participating Police Forces, the military and other personnel.  The intervention focused on the restoration of law and order and security.  Law and order and security were restored and the focus shifted to normalizing law and order and security.  Five years later the law and order and security situation has changed.  Law and order and security have been normalized, the environment has been made safer and peaceful for economic and social development.  The review of the Facilitation of International Act is therefore necessary to reflect the current situation and to establish the future direction and way forward for the partnership between the Solomon Islands Government and RAMSI. 
I now wish to speak on capacity building.  After five years of RAMSI assistances, the focus now on the partnership is capacity building and sustainability to develop the capacity of the Solomon Islands Government to create an environment that sustains economic and social development and to maintain stability and security.  The focus on both the Solomon Islands Police Force and the Correctional Services of Solomon Islands in terms of capacity building is to build professional, disciplined and sustainable services in terms human resources and institutions.  
Capacity building in the Solomon Islands Police Force and the Correctional Services of Solomon Islands has shifted from doing to supporting and mentoring in the workplace.  Ongoing training from recruits to training of potential leaders continues in their respective academies, and there are signs of continuing improvement.  The PPF, however, needs to recruit officers with the right skills to meet the capacity development needs of the Solomon Islands Police Force.  It is, therefore, essential that long serving and experienced PPF officers are recruited as advisors through their normal recruitment and selection process and deployed to critical areas of the Solomon Islands Police Force. 
In the case of the Correctional Services, local senior officers participate in the recruitment and selection process of advisors.  The biggest constraint to capacity building, however, is the lack of adequate housing and infrastructure.  The lack of police housing in the provinces makes it difficult to post more police officers to the provinces, and this affects the delivery of police services in the provinces.  If the current capacity building program by RAMSI/PPF with the Solomon Islands Police Force is to achieve its objectives, then some RAMSI funding directed to PPF should be considered to assisting the Solomon Islands Force in housing and infrastructures. 
In terms of the Correctional Services of Solomon Islands, the construction of provincial prisons under RAMSI funding includes houses for correctional officers.  The Solomon Islands Government also provides funding for correctional officers’ houses.  It will take some years, however, before the housing and infrastructure issue reaches the position where it is of a lesser constraint to capacity building. 
I will now speak on the proposed framework between the Solomon Islands Government and RAMSI.  Negotiations between the Solomon Islands Government and RAMSI on the proposed Framework Agreement for ongoing and future RAMSI assistance to Solomon Islands Government, has started.  In order for RAMSI assistance to achieve tangible results for Solomon Islands, it is necessary for RAMSI to align its assistance to the policies and priorities of the government.  This is the objective of the proposed Solomon Islands Government RAMSI framework. 
The goal of the Ministry of Police and National Security and Correctional Services in the proposed Partnership Framework is that Solomon Islanders live in a secure and safe environment where laws are administered fairly.  To achieve this goal, the strategies for the Ministry are focused on two areas.   First, infrastructure which includes housing, police stations and prisons primarily in the provinces and capacity building with a timeline of up to five years.

The Solomon Islands Government would require the assistance of RAMSI if the proposed partnership framework is to achieve the indicators and outcomes proposed in the framework.  The availability of financial resources is crucial to achieving the overall goal.  It is, therefore, crucial that the Solomon Islands Government and RAMSI agree on the strategies, indicators and outcomes of the Solomon Islands Government RAMSI proposed framework.
I now go on to the future of the partnership.  There has been much talk within government and the community on the duration of RAMSI’s presence in Solomon Islands.  This is a challenge to both the Solomon Islands Government and RAMSI.  The proposed Partnership Framework would provide some guidelines in determining the duration of RAMSI presence in Solomon Islands.  As already mentioned in the proposed Solomon Islands Government/RAMSI Framework, there are goals, strategies, indicators and outcomes which have yet to be agreed upon, and these are the main benchmarks on which the presence of RAMSI in the Partnership Arrangement may be determined. 
The long term outcome of capacity building is that the Solomon Islands Government has the capacity to identify its own direction to be able to lead and manage sustainable change, to be able to reflect on its own strength and weakness and to continuously improve its own performance.  Any consideration of ending the partnership should only be in line with achievements of the outcomes required of a capacity building program.  This may mean that any withdrawal of RAMSI should be in line with individual organization achievements as some units may capacity build quicker than others. 
Continual review and assessment or especially agreed indicators should be a priority with a stage withdrawal if necessary based on the outcomes of these assessments and achievements against agreed indicators.  That concludes my brief presentation Mr. Chairman and Foreign Relations Committee.  Thank you.

Mr Chairman:  The Permanent Secretary for Justice, do you have any presentation before us. 

Mr Remobatu:  Not a long presentation, Chairman.  I would allude to most of the things on capacity building that my colleague has just mentioned. 
I think for the purpose for my presentation, Mr. Chairman, my name is James Remobatu, and I’m the Permanent Secretary for the Ministry of Justice and Legal Affairs.  My presentation will be to highlight to the Committee the relationship between the Justice Sector and RAMSI, especially through the RAMSI Law and Justice Program. 
Chairman and committee member, assistance to the Justice Sector was before the arrival of RAMSI but very limited sort of assistance.  When RAMSI arrived in 2003 and a lot of people were arrested therefore creating huge case loads before the courts, there was offer of enhanced assistance and the government at that time agreed and therefore assistance was provided.  It was not until 2005 that a framework was put in place for RAMSI assistance to the Law and Justice Program - the Justice Sector.  That framework provides for RAMSI assistance to the Law and Justice program - the Justice Sector up to this day.  That framework was agreed to by the government then.  The framework consists of seven objectives that RAMSI will assist the Justice Sector with.  These objectives include, first to build the Justice Sector’s capacity to plan, budget for and implement the policies, strategies, structures and infrastructures necessary to meet the current and future needs of Solomon Islands.  Second, to enhance the capacity of the Justice Sector, reform and introduce new laws, procedures and practices that reflect contemporary requirements and to support widespread freedom of access by all Solomon Islanders to laws including statutes, case laws and legal information.  Thirdly, to contribute to the creation of a safe, stable and prosperous communities through the implementation of collaborative crime reduction, community safety and proactive security initiatives.  Fourth, to improve the timelines, efficiency and effectiveness of civil and criminal court practices and procedures in the operation of government legal services.  Fifth, to introduce new diversionary practices, sentencing options and justice sector procedures thus support the use of imprisonment as a sentence of last resort.  Sixth, to provide within a culturally appropriate corrections systems, ensure acceptable standards of prisoner safety and welfare, address recidivism, strengthened the rehabilitative impact of the correction system and further develop the sectors physical infrastructure to instill community confidence in the security of the correctional services.  Seventh, to develop the Solomon Islands Correctional Service capacity to build a professional, respectable and sustainable correctional services.  This framework covers both the Justice Sector and the Prisons.
The Law and Justice Program under RAMSI undertook its activities in partnership with the Ministry to address these seven objectives in the Strategic Framework Document 2005 – 2010.  A lot of achievements have been made.  In the prisons, committee members would note the infrastructure developments that have taken place in the correctional services both at Rove and now in the provinces, especially the work that is now going on in Malaita.  Also they have put in place systems and processes to strengthen correctional facilities in the provinces and put in place plans that ensure locals are equipped and capable of taking over senior positions in the organization of the corrections.  As committee members would also note, the commissioner of Prison is now being taken over by a local. 
The program through that strategic framework, the Law and Justice program has also done a lot of infrastructure development in the courts - the High Court, the Central Magistrates including the Ministry. It also provided expatriate technical assistance in the many judicial and legal offices. 
What I’m saying here, committee members, is that the assistance of RAMSI through the RAMSI Law and Justice Program is guided by that framework.  And under that framework the RAMSI Law and Justice Program has a management structure that manages the program.  The Law and Justice is headed by a Program Director, which is currently vacant and the post has been recently advertised.
There have been a lot of experiences that came about in the partnership between RAMSI and our Ministry in terms of the Law and Justice Program in implementing the seven objectives that are in the framework.
It is now about three years since the framework is in place, and I think it is also right to have the activities untaken by the program in partnership with the Ministry reviewed.  I think it’s the right time to do the review.
Having said that I also note that there is a proposed Solomon Islands Government/RAMSI Partnership Framework that is currently being negotiated and that framework, which my colleague has also mentioned, will show or put in place the priorities that the Solomon Islands Government wants in the Justice Sector, and which it may want RAMSI to assist with in the Justice Sector.  If we have the framework in place, it should address the programs that RAMSI may assist the Justice Sector with. 
The only comment I would like to make is in the management of the program.  My suggestion would be that the management of the program needs to be reviewed if it is to remain as their program.  Review, in the sense, to allow for more consultations between RAMSI and its programs within the Justice Sector to allow for prioritizing of programs and activities to be implemented, and the allocation of resources and more transparency in how resources are allocated and used.  I think this is an area which under the current phase is not that evident. 
Mr. Chairman, I think that is basically my brief submission.

Mr Chairman:  Thank you very much, Mr. Hiele and Mr. Remobatu.  I’ll start off with the questions.  I am directing this question to the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Legal Affairs.  You mentioned that this framework has seven objectives, and I’ve got those seven here as much as I can scribble down.  You are looking at planning, capacity, new laws and procedures, a stable and safe environment, efficiency, sentencing and rehabilitation, in your capacity as the Permanent Secretary for Legal Affairs and Justice, are you happy with those objectives?

Mr Remobatu:  Yes, Mr. Chairman, these objectives were developed in around 2005, and they were relevant at that point in time, most of them.  Yes, they have provided assistance in those areas and some have been successful, but as we go on the priority and focus have also changed. 
In 2005 and in the early days of RAMSI, the primary focus is restoring law and order, and that has mostly been done, especially around Honiara.  The focus now would be to shift that to other parts of the country. 

Mr Chairman:  What you are saying now is that genuinely the seven objectives you believe have been achieved more or less.

Mr Remobatu:  Some more, some not that much, like for instance where it talks about diversionary practices and sentencing options; that objective, I think was done with the assistance of the program.  That’s a bit reinvigoration of the probation system as an alternative to imprisonment.  A bit of work has been done on that but it went back to where it was before, after a pilot was proposed.   We were trying to start pilot program to reinvigorate the probation system, which would be used by the courts to sentence especially young people to probation rather than to imprisonment wherein which they would be supervised by probation people and constantly reported on, on the progress of how they are being supervised.  That was started but it didn’t continue.

Mr Chairman:  Why do you think that has slowed down?  What are the reasons you think that has slowed down?

Mr Remobatu:  I think one of the reasons is that the priority at that time, and it was also a pressing issue, was to deal with lots of people who were incarcerated in the prisons and were yet to have their cases disposed.  The question of people incarcerated or in prison without their cases being disposed off raises a lot of issues including constitutional issues.  Because of that a lot of resources had to be diverted or put into ensuring that disposal of cases in the courts are given priority.  I think that is a contributing factor to less attention being put to the issue of probation.

Mr Chairman:  You said that in the beginning it was really all about establishing law and order.  You also mentioned that times have changed, five years on, and our priorities have changed.  Am I right to say that?  Can you explain what are now the priorities of the Ministry or the priorities of our country especially in the Justice Sector?

Mr Remobatu:  I think in the Justice Sector in the early days of RAMSI, the main priority is to deal with the number of cases that result from the arrests that were made when RAMSI arrived.  Now that that has largely been dealt with, we now hear a lot of cries from provinces about no judicial services, legal services; the need for it to be felt in many parts of the country, the need for courts to be functional in the provinces to dispose off the many cases that are still lying there because police have arrested people but the courts are not providing the services frequently to dispose off those cases.  That will have to shift the priority of the Ministry to ensure that judicial and legal services are provided to the provinces rather than everything concentrating in Honiara.

Mr Chairman:  What about legal aid to people in the provinces?  I assume there is a shortage of that.  Can you tell me what you want from legal aid especially in the provinces?

Mr Remobatu:  We want people to have more access to legal aid and legal assistance.  There are lots of challenges we face in order for that to happen.  This includes capacity, the insufficient number of lawyers.  Even if we have lawyers we also need to address the way they will be accommodated.  If it’s in the provinces we need to have accommodation for them.  Even if we are to retain lawyers we need to offer them incentives before we can retain them otherwise when people gain the experience they would usually move out of government services.  These are challenges that we will try to overcome if we are to provide legal aid and services to many people in the rural areas.

Mr Chairman:  Does the Ministry have a program to sponsoring students to study law and getting qualified.  Is there a system in place for that?

Mr Remobatu:  The Ministry is relying on the Ministry of Education through the scholarships that they usually award because all funding for scholarships are administered by the Ministry of Education at the present time.  So yes, we are relying on the Ministry of Education for the provision of scholarships.  
For the information of committee members, the last few years there was a moratorium on law scholarship.  I think it will only be next year that some scholarships will be provided for law studies.  We expect in a few years no law graduates to be funded through government funding or government funding for law studies.

Mr Chairman:  A law program takes, I think, about four or five years and then you have to go into practice.  What are we going to do in the meantime?

Mr Remobatu:  Currently we know there are a number of students that will be coming out from law schools.  Our intention is to try and capture the students who are now completing their law studies and would be available to be recruited.  We are trying to capture them.  But we will not have much choice when we will have no local law students or those completing their law studies because of the effect of the moratorium in the few years ahead except maybe to look at other sources or other means of getting lawyers from outside.

Mr Chairman:  Turning to you, Mr Hiele, Permanent Secretary for Police, you mentioned benchmarks and indicators.  Can you explain to the Committee what sort of benchmarks are you looking at?  Is housing a benchmark that you are considering as well?

Mr Hiele:  I think I have covered some of the responses to that question in my presentation.  But let me say this in answer to your question, benchmarks in capacity building should be established in partnership with RAMSI and this is an important approach in the Solomon Islands Government/RAMSI Partnership Framework. 
Capacity building must be aimed at individual staff members under the organization and a range of indicators and outcomes are put in place that when monitored are able to gage the level of capacity achieved of each specific area of operation.  For example, in the Correctional Services, one of the benchmark is that prison has put in place a system that is able to provide rehabilitation opportunities for prisoners.  In terms of the Solomon Island Police Force, the Crime Prevention Council and village based committees are established and functioning.  Those are two examples of benchmarks, which I am able to convey to you. 
The organization, however, must also provide corporate leadership in all areas of administration.  Each organization in the Public Service would of course have its own benchmarks.  Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Hon Soalaoi:  In terms of the capacity building program in your Ministry, I guess professionalism and discipline are emphasized regarding the training of police officers.  That has been an issue as most of us said that the Police Force has lost its professionalism and discipline as a result of the events of 2000.  After five years of training, professional training under RAMSI, do you think that we now have a force that is disciplined and professional?  Are they now ready to be rearmed because of the professional training they had been receiving under this capacity building program after these five years with RAMSI professionals?

Mr Hiele:  My response to the question would be that the essence of capacity building in the Solomon Islands Police Force is to build the professionalism, discipline and the integrity of police officers.  These three areas are very important so that the Police Force can have officers of very high caliber.  I am talking about not overnight but it will happen.  Training in these areas is emphasized in capacity building, which is supported by RAMSI in the Solomon Islands Police Force.  The day will come when we cannot rely on the PPF; the Police will have to stand on its own feet and be able to manage the organization on their own sustainably. 

Mr Chairman:  Is your Ministry satisfied with the ongoing capacity building RAMSI is undertaking in relation to both of your ministries?  Or are there other considerations that need to be taken into account?  Are you satisfied with the capacity building exercises that are happening in your Ministries?

Mr Remobatu:  In the Justice Ministry, I think a lot still needs to be done.  We are talking about different categories of capacity or different levels of capacity.  If we talk about the legal and judicial capacity, it will take time to build, and compounding that would be the challenges that I mentioned earlier on. 
In the supporting services, some sort of trainings that will assist in capacity building has been undertaken but more needs to be done.  My answer to that question will be that while some capacity building or developments have been undertaken, there are also other areas that capacity development needs to be undertaken, and it is something that will take time. 
I am not saying that it should be left to RAMSI to do it, but since RAMSI is still with us then it’s something that they could be asked to assist us with.  But it’s also something the Ministry will also have to play a part in and if there are others who can also assist then that is also welcomed.  But capacity development in the justice sector, I would say, is a process that will take time before full capacity is realized. 
The Ministry and the government would also need to address a lot of other challenges and issues that will impact on capacity development.  I believe if these issues and challenges are addressed, we will be able to see that we can be satisfied with the capacity development that is taking place or has taken place and will be taking place.  Thank you Chairman.

Mr Hiele:  In terms of the Solomon Islands Police Force and the Correctional Services, we must not forget that capacity building of human resources is not the answer; it is one of the components of the whole specter of capacity building.  As I had mentioned in my presentation today, the biggest constraint to capacity building is infrastructure.  To give you an example, there have been officers recruited into the Police who have gone through their probationary period but cannot be posted out to the provinces because of lack of housing and lack of adequate office space.  This is the same situation with the Prison Services.  With the Prison Service, the law and justice framework, which my colleague has mentioned caters for the building of provincial prisons and within building of provincial prisons there is an element included there to build houses for prison officers.  That is working satisfactorily but there are other areas in the provinces where prison houses have run down which are being addressed at this point in time through SIG funding from consolidated funds.  The same applies to the Police. 
The capacity building in terms of human resources is working and we are beginning to see some positive signs, but to build the integrity, the discipline and professionalism of police officers cannot be done overnight.  Let us not forget that during the tension there was no Police Force and to build a Police Force from practically nothing to what it is today is an achievement in itself.

Hon Ghiro:   This question has been raised several times here and I think you two are the people that this question should be directed at.  What is your view on the proposed rearming of our Police Force?

Mr Hiele:  As committee members would be aware, government policy is not to rearm the Solomon Islands Police Force at this point in time.  The Protection Unit that is protecting VIPs is not armed but the Unit is supported by a RAMSI unit that is armed so that if assistance is required, the Protection Unit can always request assistance from the PPF.  Don’t forget also that we have the military here, although it has been scaled down but we still have a contingent of the military here, and some more are coming. 
To honestly answer your question, the time is not yet right to rearm the Solomon Islands Police Force. 

Mr Chairman:  When you answer that question it begs another question, and that is, so when do you think is the right time to rearm our Police Force?  When do you think is the right time?  That may also come to the benchmark aspect.  What sort of benchmark do we need to achieve in order for us to be able to rearm our Police Force?  Have you got any idea for that?

Mr Hiele:  To be honest I can’t see that far at this point in time.  But certainly the benchmark that we would look at is to look at those that have been set in terms of capacity building of the officers, of the organization, of the processes and systems.  These cannot be taken in isolation; they have to be addressed together. 

Hon Soalaoi:  In regards to the partnership framework that is being worked out between RAMSI and SIG, I believe that the main objective is for the realignment of RAMSI work with government priorities.  
In the Ministry of Police, National Security and also Legal Affairs, are there any specific areas that needs to be realigned with government priorities?  I know it’s a bit hard for us to know what kind of areas RAMSI needs to realign with government priorities.  What I am trying to get at here is, are there areas in your ministries that need to be realigned?  In another way of looking at it, has there anything RAMSI has been doing in the two ministries that are not in their mandate? 

Mr Hiele:  As I have mentioned in my presentation, the activities of RAMSI have to be aligned with the policies and the priorities of the Solomon Islands Government.  In our corporate plan, in our work plan these have been taken into account.  In the proposed framework, which you have a copy we have set down what we think RAMSI should concentrate on to assist the Police and the Correctional Services. 
As I have said earlier on today, the goal of the Ministry of Police and Correctional Services in the proposed framework is, first of all, infrastructure which includes housing, police stations and prisons primarily in the provinces, and second is capacity building.  These are broken down into strategies in this framework with indicators and outcomes.  What we are saying to RAMSI is that these are our priorities and so please align your activities with these priorities and we want assistance in these priorities.  I mentioned that today in my short presentation.  Thank you Chairman.

Mr Remobatu:  I think what I may need to say is that the framework is at this stage just a draft not yet negotiated and concluded.  But in the current draft I think the priorities that we think are the priorities of the Solomon Islands Government are stated in there.  For the Ministry of Justice and Legal Affairs, there also indications in the draft on what we think are priorities for the Ministry. 
As I have mentioned earlier on, the focus is on providing services to rural parts of the country, and infrastructure is one of the matters indicated in the draft framework.  That also goes in line with that focus, the intention to move services to the rural parts of the country. 

Hon Soalaoi:  A question on the same line.  I believe a result of RAMSI realigning its activities with the priorities of the government will result in RAMSI engaging in areas that traditionally are carried out by our traditional development partners.  To say it in a simple, that will result in the broadening of the RAMSI mandate.  I know some areas will be up to the government of the day or it will be government policy for us to enter into areas that may be officers are not allowed to make comments on.  
In your personal opinion, do you support the eventual broadening of the mandate of RAMSI?  Like what I said earlier when we do that realignment it would eventually result in RAMSI going into areas it has never gone into before.  All of us know the original mandate of RAMSI when it came in 2003, and that is to deal with the law and order issue. 
As very high officers in your two ministries, I’m simply asking for your personal opinion on what do you support as broadening of the RAMSI mandate.  I believe that some areas that our other partners have been dealing with, they are still willing to help us, but I think the phase of the developments to meet our needs is not really in our favor.  They’ve been here with us for a long time, and I believe with RAMSI coming into those areas might help to quickly solve those problems.  I am asking for your personal opinions if you two support the idea of broadening RAMSI’s mandate.

Mr Chairman:  Basically what he is saying is that the priorities of both of your ministries, does that necessitate broadening of RAMSI’s mandate or can it be done within the existing mandate? 

Mr Hiele:  First of all, I would like to say that the responses made in terms of the proposed framework are relevant only to the Ministry of Police, National Security and Correctional Services. 
The proposed activities in the framework in terms of my Ministry, most of them are already ongoing.  What we are saying here is that in the next phase, we want RAMSI to continue with its support.  We also have some timelines that we can work towards. 
We have already been working on what is down on the proposed framework because they are on going; they have started and are ongoing.  In terms of broadening the mandate of RAMSI, that is the government’s intention, but this is yet to be negotiated.  As I’ve said the negotiations have started and will continue.  

Mr Remobatu:  If we also relate to the current programs that we want to be included in the framework, I think most of them are being taken care of, which may indicate that the current mandate covers the programs and activities carried out in the Ministry of Justice. 
As to broadening of the mandate, I would also comment along the same line as my colleague.  I think it is the intention of government and whether that will be the way to go or otherwise will be a subject for negotiation.  Thank you.

Hon Ghiro:  We all know that RAMSI has been here for five years now.  What do you see as some of the successes and failure in the areas of implementing RAMSI’s programs in the judiciary in the last five years?

Mr Remobatu:  In terms of the Law and Justice Program, I think that is where it touches our Ministry.  Some of the success stories will include providing the environment that has enabled a lot of other things to happen in this country.  But in relation to the Ministry, there have been assistance in the form of infrastructure development in the courts, as I mentioned earlier on.  There have been assistance in the earlier days through provision of judicial services throughout the provinces when they provided us with boats to use for the magistrates and lawyers to travel around the country.  This enabled them to reach places like Ontong Java, the eastern parts of Temotu where they haven’t seen any magistrates for more than 10 years.  They have also assisted us in the Ministry in strengthening our capacity to really work on things that need to be done to assist our legal and judicial agencies to work much better than they used to before.  I think the most tangible one would be the disposal of a lot of the tension related cases through the courts.  I think if was not for their assistance a lot of people will still be waiting in the prisons or waiting for their cases to be dealt with.  In terms of their assistance by way of lawyers and funding, I think we’ve seen a lot of tension related cases disposed through the courts.  I would say that those were some of the success stories.

Mr Chairman:  Do you have anything to add on to that?  What do you believe are some of the successes and failures of RAMSI?

Mr Hiele:  To put it broadly, on the successes of RAMSI, law has been restored and not only restored but law and order has been normalized and therefore in terms of the police we are now on the third priority, and that is rebuilding of the Solomon Islands Police Force.  As I have said in my presentation there are positive signs that the capacity building is having some good results.  
In relation to the prisons, the success story there is that prisons have been upgraded; prisons are working taking in prisoners and taking in juvenile inmates in their role of supporting the justice system.  Mr. Chairman, I think that’s all I can say whilst there may be questions in the minds of people as to whether RAMSI is really affective and really successful.  I would say yes, but they are only successful as long as we want them to be, and this is why in my presentation I said that the Government must know what it wants RAMSI to do, and this is very important.  

Mr Chairman: That is it.  Thank you Mr. George Hiele, Permanent Secretary of Police and National Security and Mr. James Remobatu, Permanent for Justice and Legal Affairs.  Thank you for participating in our meeting today.
MR PAUL TOVUA

Mr Chairman:  Honorable Members of the Foreign Relations Committee, Mr Paul Tovua, former Speaker & former Chairman of the National Peace Council, stakeholders and members of the public, welcome, Sir, to the inquiry into and review of matters relating to RAMSI by the Foreign Relations Committees. On behalf of our Committee, I would like to express my gratitude for your willingness to participate in our inquiry. The Committee acknowledges your role and experience as a former Speaker. We also invited you as a witness given that you played a major role during the conflict years as a peace negotiator and monitor through the Peace Monitoring Committee and its successor as well as in other similar initiatives. We recognize your contribution to the peace process in the period leading up to and even after the arrival of RAMSI. We hope to be enlightened by you Sir on the backdrop to the intervention and to hear your views on RAMSI and its future in this country.
Before the hearing commences, I wish to remind you that this hearing is protected by parliamentary privilege.  It is also being broadcast live by the SIBC and recorded by One News to be aired perhaps later today.
We will now proceed with the hearing.  We will first hear a presentation from the witness before committee members ask any questions they wish to ask of the witness.  Sir, could I now ask you to please state your name for the records and please proceed with your opening statement if you so wish.

Mr Tovua:  My name is Paul Tovua, I am from Guadalcanal in particular Central Guadalcanal.  First of all, I’d like to pay my respect to you Chairman and your colleague members of the Foreign Relations Committee for including me into your very busy and important and vital program on the ongoing work of RAMSI in Solomon Islands.
I’d like to make a brief overview of the work of RAMSI in Solomon Islands.  First of all, I might also like to say that the review of the Facilitation of the International Assistance Act is timely and an ongoing process as provided for in the Act.  Also as we sometimes have seen the work of RAMSI since its inception and beginning in 2003, as you Mr. Chairman, know the first scope of Strengthened Assistance in RAMSI is limited to only areas where we feel that should be addressed during those times, mainly focusing on law and order at that time.  But as we’ve journey for the past five years, we can see that peace building and also capacity building in certain areas of our government mechanism there is a need to look at, not only have we been focusing on the immediate but also to look at short and medium term operation or strategies and also long term.  I think it is long term that we may like to stretch.  
In terms of the original scope of RAMSI, people are saying we want peace but peace maybe costly, and I don’t mean paying compensation but in terms of looking at the long term development of the country.  And I think this is where our government through RAMSI and the various capitals and properly coordinated by the Pacific Forum Island Secretariat so that we can say the focus on law and order and capacity building has reached a certain level, I think now we should be looking at capacity building areas and also in the government financial system.  I think those areas have reached a certain level.  So we should be looking at other areas for the long term. 
Mr. Chairman, on partnership, first of all we look at this partnership.  We look that in the partnership it includes all the regional countries, the Pacific Islands Forum countries, regional friends of ours.  That is very much part of the original framework. 
That operational partnership is very important, much more important is the Solomon Islands partnership.  Here we have our own people.  At the government level we have our administrators and our police, but I think what has been useful and now has been disbanded is indigenous organizations such as the one I have been a chairman of - the National Peace Council.  This is a partnership in operation and it is an indigenous organization where people can identify themselves with.  It is an organization that provides a go between that is necessary for the communities to approach the government and to approach RAMSI. 
I just came back from the Weather Coast yesterday, and people there do not come directly to approach RAMSI especially the police or army or our own Solomon Islands Police Force.  If you can reflect on the operation that was done by the Solomon Islands Police under the name of Joint Operation by some of our people, people still have the feeling of fear.  It needs something that has a basis on the ground where people can identify themselves, it has on the ground hands-on experience, internet working.  Things that have happened at Avu Avu, the burning of the Police House at Kakabona, incidents that happened at our place here at North Guadalcanal could have been avoided had this indigenous organization continues to exist in those places.  I believe it because through my experience, things in the Weather Coast, things on Guadalcanal, on Malaita and some parts of West were coming to normalcy until the previous government has decided to disband organizations such as the National Peace Council. 
If I may move on, Mr. Chairman, I know that the contingent of RAMSI including the police and military have had some informal sessions in trying to introduce to them the kind of environment they would be living under in Solomon Islands.  But I think one important aspect I would like to make mention here is the cultural sensitivity in their operations here in Solomon Islands.  It does not mean that we want our friends from Australia, New Zealand or other Pacific Islands to know the whole cultural background of Solomon Islands, but at least they should be, in their operations be very much sensitive to the norms and values of our cultures in this country. 
Again there needs to be more work in mediation and reconciliation to continue the work we’ve done in the past and then there’s the continued intra reconciliation at the community, ward, constituency and then we should be looking at the inter provincial like the Malaita/Guadalcanal, the Guadalcanal and any other provinces for that matter.  This is an area that we need to be looking at. 
On the whole I think that RAMSI still has work to do in Solomon Islands, but perhaps on the areas that I have alluded, including may be looking at long term issues in terms of development, if that can also be focused on, a lot more on peace building which we ourselves in Solomon Islands.  At the moment we lack the experience.  Those who have been given the charge in the Ministry have lack of experience, have lacked the will to go out and do the actual peace building process rather than talking and sitting down here in the capital saying we are doing peace building, which of course is not.  Peace building you must spent 50 percent of your time out in the field, 50 percent of your time doing planning and programs and then finding the resources to go out there.
Finally, I would like to suggest very much that resubmit, re-look at bringing into operation an indigenous organization to be financed by our donors.  AusAID has been financing the former NPC, it did not cost our national government any money, but Ausaid, New Zealand aid and the UNDP. 
I think those are my brief comments Mr. Chairman and your colleague members of the Foreign Relations Committee.  Once again thank you for including me in this inquiry.  Thank you.

Mr Chairman:  Thank you very much Mr. Tovua.  We will get along to the peace process, but let me start of by asking you our first question.  Given your role in the pre RAMSI period of peace efforts and peace monitoring, do you think at that time that it was a necessity for RAMSI to intervene in its initial form? 

Mr Tovua: Yes, initially during those times when certain things were happening it was necessary for RAMSI to have an overwhelming presence with its military, naval ships, helicopters, planes; I think it’s necessary to have them.  However, as we go along we see that they have scaled down the operations and the presence of certain contingents or part of the initial presence that were here. 

Mr Chairman:  In your opinion was the initial mandate of RAMSI appropriate in Solomon Islands’ circumstances at that time?  Do you think RAMSI has effectively fulfilled its initial mandate following its arrival?

Mr Tovua:  First of all, I think I may go back Mr. Chairman and thank the wisdom of our original leaders, the Prime Ministers who have the vision to institute or made decisions among others on the Biketawa Declaration whereby it accommodates an operation such as RAMSI.  Following that, I would also like to thank the government then, for which you are very much a part of and you, yourself Mr. Chairman for having the insight, not only to invite but to facilitate even after the initials talks in Canberra and Sydney to put in place principles whereby the Facilitation of International Assistance Act was made.
Going on from that which the Act facilitate for the coming in and arrival of RAMSI, overall the operations that have been done, and I hope they continue, have been very much a success story for this particular exercise.  I think it’s something, as part of Solomon Islands, I’m proud to say it is something that can be an example to similar operations in other places.  There may be some room for improvements but those are very minor things that will be not necessarily affect the main focus of the operations of RAMSI in Solomon Islands.  
To me, it is very much a success story, but from here onwards what do we think we can focus on, not only in the Law and Order sector but a bigger picture; a bigger picture meaning would it be considered appropriate to include in their scope of operation now other development aspects of economic development in the country.

Mr Chairman:  As the head of the National Peace Council what was the relationship between the National Peace Council and RAMSI at its arrival?  Did RAMSI provide any support in terms of the administration and operations of the Council or was it basically a donor thing?  

Mr Tovua:  I think RAMSI found the National Peace Council as an important partner.  In fact if you can remember those times, no government representatives have ever gone close to places like the Weather Coast, not even education officers let alone the police or their presence have been very, very slim and so our presence in those areas, our networking has been welcomed by the people.  This is when RAMSI found initially, even after that that our role in those communities was very useful for them to come in.  In fact, I was almost somebody important at that time.  I had to meet Mr. Bartley, Mr. McDevitt, John F almost on a daily basis asking me ‘where do we go from here’.  The first place we went to was Avu Avu, the second place was MBabanakira in your own constituency Chairman, and the third one is Isuna and then from there on we went around the country.  I did provide important connectors through to RAMSI and they have been using the NPC very much as a network on the ground. 
I think it is important that a similar kind of setup, not necessarily the NPC but something similar not only on Guadalcanal but Malaita too.  I am thinking very much at Western Province would like something of that nature to be set up.  In other words, I’m pointing or identifying what I may term as ‘used to be hot spots’ in the country. 

Mr Chairman:  Part of the work of the National Peace Council and its predecessor was the collection of guns and assisting RAMSI to do the same.  Former private gun owners are now calling for compensation for the destruction of their firearms.  Do you think these owners should compensated and by whom, RAMSI or SIG? 

Mr Tovua:  First of all, if we can all go back to that time, and I still have the sense and the feeling, well I had then at that time that any guns whatever, whether commercial or homemade or high powered is frightening for everyone.  Hence during those days everybody agreed that guns have to be handed in, and of course it’s a government instruction.  Later on when RAMSI came in they were also part of it.  We played a major part in that through government instruction.  Out of all the weapons we collected, which is about 3,400 of them, 51 percent of that were collected here and then were destroyed by the order of the government in those times.
It is a very dangerous exercise for us not having any knowledge at all on how to deal with weapons, guns, ammunitions; we have been put in a situation where we are the collection points.  Out in the fields, our monitoring posts were involved and guns were handed to them.  All the guns that we received were recorded except for some that were received by other organizations that we do not have any records of, but all the guns, weapons that we received were kept a record of, and I hope the records are still there in the computers. 
But it’s one of our programs at that time we called the “Weapons Free Village” and it is organized so that chiefs, women leaders, church leaders help us and they are the ones that actually declare, and it takes up to may be three, four or six months before they to the village and say this village here in the Ghaobata Constituency has no guns, likewise all the other villages until a ward is rid of guns, they are all gun free and then they all come together and are given certification and a signboard that proudly displayed to show other communities that their village is weapons free and they want other people to respect the wish of their community not to have any guns in there. 

Mr Chairman:  As you would know, my constituency is a weapons free zone.

Mr Tovua:  Yes, West Guadalcanal is part of that. 

Hon Soalaoi:  During your time with the Peace Council, I believe you had the opportunity to interact with people in the village level more than government officers, and you could also have had the chance to may be share with them some of things contained in the Facilitation Act.  Did you think at that time it was necessary for RAMSI personnel to be conferred the powers, privileges and immunities that they have under the Act until today?  Do you think they are still necessary?

Mr Tovua:  Thank you for that very important comment and question.  As I alluded to earlier, in those days people are crying out for peace.  They just want peace and hence when the Facilitation of International Assistance Act came or even the talk in Canberra and then the talk in Sydney, that to the people is like a light coming through the tunnel that peace is coming.  It’s a welcoming kind of sign. 
All the nitty gritties or the principles of the Facilitation of International Assistance Act is probably secondary to them in that they don’t really want to know and comprehend what it is.  All they want to know in simple terms is how do they achieve peace.  Is it through the Facilitation International Assistance Act?  Then let it be done.  What they really want is peace in their communities, do what they have to do in their own communities and move around freely.  Of course, today is a different situation altogether.  Now that we have peace, we’ve forgotten what was the situation and the environment in those times.  Human beings are like that; we easily forget things.  But I think today is probably different, not a lot different but I think the difference is that people will want to know that they have reached this stage and so where do they go from here.  In RAMSI’s intervention in the Solomon Islands Government where do we go from here? 
For me personally, the Facilitation of International Assistance still has relevancy.  May be there are minor issues that we may need to look at.  But I think most it is very, very relevant in the context of what RAMSI is doing and what we hope RAMSI will be helping us out in the future. 

Hon Soalaoi:  I still have two more questions to ask.  As you’ve have already learned, some argued that it is certain aspects and some actions of RAMSI, that somehow undermines the sovereignty of the Solomon Islands Government.  Some also argued that RAMSI has been running a parallel government, may be not government but parallel whatever it is to SIG and the police.  What is your view on this suggestion?

Mr Tovua:  First of all on the matter of sovereignty of Solomon Islands, I have the highest respect for the sovereignty of this country from independence as I was one of the Members of Parliament in 1978 or before 1978 until now.  I have never believed or considered any of the aspects of RAMSI operation in Solomon Islands since its inception and its operation to be compromising the sovereignty of Solomon Islands. 
Certainly before RAMSI came, I’d like to tell you Chairman and your committee members that the sovereignty of this country has been compromised by none other than Solomon Islanders themselves and we need our friends in the name of RAMSI to come and rescue this country.  I think from here we have to go forward and protect that sovereignty that we almost lose. 
            In terms of a parallel government, I think that could also be a misconception.  And I’m pleased that our government, the last government and even this government too, is in the process of putting in place someone to represent the Solomon Islands Government in working closely with RAMSI so that rather than looking at it parallel, it should be a joint kind of work that government representatives together with RAMSI and then reports it’s finding to the government through Cabinet rather than looking at it as a parallel or even the big name we used to call it before ‘special envoy’.  I think it’s not only representing the government’s view but people’s views as well, and also from the other angle getting the views of RAMSI back to the Government and the Cabinet. 

Hon. Soalaoi:  I must thank you for what you’ve said because we also believe that even before RAMSI came, we ourselves in Solomon Islands have undermined our sovereignty and we should thank RAMSI for helping us rebuild some integrity or putting back respect for our state.  
            Sir, the other thing that should help avoid RAMSI becoming a parallel government is the current partnership framework that is being work on now, and as far as I know it’s still in a draft form.  However, the question I have does not relate to the framework but it’s to do with rearmament. 
Do you think that Solomon Islands is ready to see our Police Force rearmed?  Just a follow up on that question, do you think it’s a wise thing to introduce private ownership of firearms because since RAMSI came in these firearms were taken away regardless of whether they are legally or illegally owned?   

Mr Tovua:   Those are very important comments and question.  First of all, I need to have time to sit down and look at the partnership framework, but I think it is an important documentation of principles that the two sides, namely our government, RAMSI and inside the umbrella of the Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat.  It is an important, as I said, and I think the sooner this partnership framework is being deliberated on and discussed by the government together with RAMSI and the Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat, it has to be done soon. 
            The specific comment on rearmament of our Police Force, of course, under the present arrangement it is with the permission of the Commissioner of Police, but I hope that we are not too anxious about this. 
In the first instance when we were still in the National Peace Council, I keep on referring to these times because they were times that we feared so much for the lives of people; we fear guns.  At that time I was recommending to RAMSI’s Nick Warner, Ben McDevitt and John that ‘please, can you have some kind of force on standby say in Townsville.  That time we were thinking of maybe including Australia, New Zealand other Pacific Islands.  I was thinking at that time that if anything happens in Solomon Islands, they can mobilize this group within 12 hours or whatever the time they need to be mobilized.  The thinking is that ‘don’t ever let us get hold of guns again’.  Because to me we use state owned properties to desecrate the sovereignty and the pride of the people of this country.  It is our own guns that our people, Solomon Islanders, took up and almost destroyed this country, the sanctity of this country, God’s country, the holy land and its people.  At that time I was saying, ‘no more guns’, I’ve just had enough of it.  But as we go on, it is very much a matter of consideration by the government through the police if it’s deemed necessary.  But at the moment I think we need to have trust, trust to be instilled in our Force.  Not meaning that they deserve the trust but they have to earn the trust.  They have to earn it from the people.  All the trusts and goodwill has to be earned and it’s not something that we have to bestow upon our police or on our civil servants, but they have to earn it whether through the hard way but they have to earn it before we can rearm or maybe rearm just certain sectors.  But at the moment in terms of the VIP and Prime Minister’s Security, I don’t know maybe the Governor General, but there has been a very good arrangement for him.  I mean now, I don’t think there is the necessity to rearm our police. 
We preach the principle of ‘friends to all and enemy to none’.  So far we do not have any enemies outside except, of course, ourselves and these are enemies that are eminent in the country, and this is one thing that yourself honorable Members and ourselves have to be mindful and we have to continue to find ways that prevent what has happened; prevent and avoid it at all expenses. 

Hon. Ghiro:  The Committee noted that some have called for an expansion of RAMSI’s mandate to cover areas such as economic development.  The Committee further noted that others have opposed to this call on the basis that RAMSI should not undertake the work of traditional aid agencies.  What is your view on this conflict argument, Paul?

Mr Tovua:  Thank you honorable Member for Central Makira.  Yes, as I said the initial scope of RAMSI’s strengthened assistance has been very good and has been useful as it focused very much on law and order, capacity building, looking at strengthening assistance in the financial sector and its administration.  And the word that I have been using is peace.  We still need peace in many parts of this country.  When I say peace it does not only mean for Guadalcanal, Malaita and West.  It has to include other provinces too because they have been affected during the tension that took place on Guadalcanal.  Personally, I think we should be extending the scope of RAMSI.  I use RAMSI but it must also be sanctioned because when we talk about RAMSI it is a regional initiative.  In other words, it has to be sanctioned by the Pacific Forum countries through the Forum Secretariat. 
I know that RAMSI is not all Australians but the bulk of the money is met by Australia.  I know people are saying that Australia has already bilaterally contributed to the development of this country, which is true.  But I think we can make use of, not only Australia but some of these regional funding through RAMSI to help in the development of Solomon Islands.  I can give you an example that in the Weather Coast even including West Guadalcanal communication is a problem.  They used to have a road system from Marau to Kuma and we go in there and asked them what they would need to bring about peace at their places.  The People turned around and said that they have copra and cocoa but there are no ships to transport these commodities to the buying points.  People really need something that they can live on. 
When we talk about peace what should come in so that people would get themselves involved.  What we were thinking about was, can these roads be not only improved but construct new ones because everything were washed away - the bridges and the crossings of the rivers.  I mean these are the kind of things that when we go to specific areas we tell them what we can help the people with this.  This will make people feel confident and will say that we really bring peace to them.  The same should be in other provinces. 
We really need to help Malaita by encouraging real development there including those that were already identified but there are other areas as well so that we can get the life line of economic development so that people can be happy, maybe not overnight but it will take some years. 
I think some people may think that we are stretching it too far but we need to sit down and talk about it with regional countries, and of course traditional donors too will come into this. 

Hon. Ghiro:  My next question is, it becomes evident to me after the recent conflict that churches played a major role in peace and reconciliation efforts.  Do you think churches should be formally recognized by RAMSI in any peace and reconciliation incentives?

Mr Tovua:  Indeed, Churches are important stakeholders and very influential in this country.  Even during the initial problems that this country went through and these islands including Malaita, Guadalcanal, West, Isabel, Makira etc., the Churches played an important role in peace building efforts. 
The church is one organization and of course we like churches to take leading roles.  Again we cannot force them.  So far they have been giving their overwhelming support in peace building.  Sometimes it is also not easy to convince them as it is very much up to them to agreeing wanting to be part of the process.  But this is the area where I thought the Ministry has taken away peace building from the National Peace Council.  It could then coordinate all stakeholders, including churches, Women for Peace, and other non-state actors like the World Vision or other people who are playing important roles in peace building.  We can say we do the coordination of these organizations and this is what we do so that we don’t duplicate.  At the moment, I don’t really know what some of the organizations are doing; maybe they are trying to duplicate each other.  If we properly coordinate someone, the government I think, they could do a much more effective and efficient work in peace building in the country.  
I think the Church of Melanesia has taken onboard in trying to look at where they can be helpful, and so they need to be acknowledged, and the way to acknowledge the Church is to empower them, including communities; empower them meaning if the government has to offer training in peace building and mediation then it has to do it.  Empower them if they need finance or resources or if they need logistic support.  These are very important components of peace building in the country.  Yes, I think they should be recognized, and not only churches but other stakeholders in the peace building process too. 

Hon. Ghiro:  This is my last question to you Paul.  In your personal opinion, has RAMSI done enough in terms of capacity building and confidence in local Police officers?  If not what do you think RAMSI can do to improve situation at it currently stands?

Mr Tovua:  Thank you Mr Chairman and Honorable Member for Central Makira for raising an important point and question concerning our local Police Officers, the Solomon Islands Police Force because these are the people that need to have appropriate capacity building, and not only that but resources and their environment to live in including where they live, their houses including the support service they require in order for them to be able to carry out the work that is required of them in maintaining law and order in this country.  For long term peace and security of this country, these are the people we are looking at.  But as I said earlier they themselves need to get the necessary knowledge and experience, and not only that but they need to have the confidence of the people. 
I used the word ‘not only confidence’ but they must earn, not only deserve to get confidence but they must earn it.  In other words, it is a complete trust of the people of this country.  We need to get back to that level. 
Before this tension and the olden days, the Royal Solomon Islands Police at that time has been one of the best in the region.  Unfortunately, we lost that, and this is not by somebody else but our own people who lost that status, and I think we need to get that status back again and from thereon.  I think a little bit more coaching by RAMSI.  One thing that I noticed about a year or two years ago is that RAMSI have become advisors.  I would have thought that in the consolidating phase of their capacity building and operational, they should spend sometime together with the police on operational duty matters.  Both of them need to become ‘peers’ of each other is the word I was trying to look for.  And it’s not just advisor, but these people need to know from their counterparts what is required of a professional policeman or policewoman.  Those are cultures that need time and effort before one knows about it, and whilst our friends are here, the Pacific Island countries including Australia and New Zealand, I think it is timely that they learn from each other what is required to have professionalism in their role as policemen and policewomen. 

Hon. Sopaghe:  I have three questions to ask you.  Given your role in the working committee which assisted the CNURA Government in the establishment of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, do you think that RAMSI should play a part to assist the Commission when it commenced its work, and if so how could RAMSI assist? 

Mr Tovua:  Thank you Mr Chairman and thank you Honorable Member for Ghaobata for that very important question concerning the recent Act that has gone through Parliament in the last meeting.  I am very thankful and I know the Ministry has expressed this, but personally as a member of the Committee that put together principles which made that Act, I am pleased that it has now gone through Parliament. 
In fact today we were supposed to have a meeting.  There is an oversight committee now in place to help the government in the initial setting up or getting ready to invoke the Act and making it happen, but it will take time.  This afternoon we were supposed to meet with some of the donors, the technical people, and I had to make an excuse not to attend that meeting because I already had in my diary to meet with your Committee, and so I said I will forgo that meeting and next time I will attend the meeting.  But I am one of the four of us who were given the task to help the government in its facilitation on how best we can set up the commission.  It’s really organizing because it takes time. 
Again at the moment, we have not gone through RAMSI in relation to this TRC.  Of course, when we were doing the consultation, we’ve gone through RAMSI but other donors have agreed to help including the European Union, the International Justice which is a part UN organization and they agreed that they would help set up and finance the TRC.
I hope that by next year, and this is personally from me, things will be in place to be able to make the appointment of the commissioners by which time we would have the secretariat set up, finding an office space for them, and all the necessary arrangements to be able to make the Truth and Reconciliation Commission become a workable organization as provided for under the Act.  Thank you. 

Hon. Sopaghe:  What is your opinion for a possible exit strategy for RAMSI and also what do you want the future of RAMSI and Solomon Islands to be? 

Mr Tovua:  Of course, strategically the work of RAMSI could be enhanced through some of the aspects we are talking about in terms of long term developments.  In other words, I’m saying that maybe less and less focus in some of the areas including finance, capacity building training and looking at other areas that RAMSI should be involved in apart from law and order and security.
I think the future of RAMSI should be a reflection of what the people and the government of this country wants it to be.  This means how we want to see RAMSI go out from the country in the future, whether another five years or another 10 years it is depended on the government.  I think you are very much part of this in your inquiry so that recommendation can be made to the government and Parliament.  
The future of RAMSI in Solomon Islands realistically should show the future of Solomon Islands, and that is it should be a bright future.  There should be a bright future for Solomon Islands provided that we ourselves get in and say RAMSI you are here to help us.  I think once we get a lot of things established and stabilized we can thank RAMSI, but I think this is sometimes in the distant future.  It’s not something that we can say we have their strategy and so we can use that to look after ourselves.  I think we need some more time together with RAMSI, especially in police, security working together with the executive of RAMSI.  
Maybe in the non-police and non-security, especially in administration or consultation or expertise, we should be also asking that we get more Samoans, Tongans, Fijians Papua New Guineans, the Cooks, Niue that may also be very useful and helpful to our people, our civil servants.  I think this is where we can learn a lot, not only from New Zealand and Australia but from all the other countries.  They may have specific knowledge in an area. 
I know that in Tonga and in Samoa and these smaller countries, they have specific and important knowledge on agriculture, which is relevant and related to our kind of set up here. 

Mr Chairman:  That is all for today.  Thank you Mr Paul Tovua, former Chair of the Peace Monitoring Council for your wisdom today.  Thank you for participating.

Mr Tovua:  Thank you very much Mr Chairman and committee members.

SECRETARY TO THE PRIME MINISTER

Mr Chairman:  Honorable Members of the Foreign Relations Committee, Mr Jeremiah Manele, Secretary to the Prime Minister, stakeholders and members of the public, good afternoon and welcome to the ninth hearing of our inquiry.  As you know this hearing is part of our Committee’s inquiry into and review on matters relating to RAMSI.  We previously heard from you when the Prime Minister appeared before this Committee, but we realize that you appeared at that time in a supportive capacity. 
Today the Committee is pleased that you’ve accepted our invitation for you to appear in your administrative capacity.  We acknowledge your work previously in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and more recently in the Office of the Prime Minister and Cabinet.  The Committee understands that in your current position together with the Secretary to Cabinet you have had to deal directly with certain components of RAMSI.  It is that experience and insight into the administration and operations of RAMSI in conjunction with the Solomon Islands Government that our Committee wishes to draw on today.
            Before we commence the hearing, please be reminded that any evidence you submit in this hearing is protected by parliamentary privilege and cannot be subsequently used against you in any legal proceedings. Further, please note that this hearing is being recorded by One News to be televised later and that the SIBC is also broadcasting our proceedings today alive. 
Let us proceed with the hearing.  Can you state your name for the records please?  I note in my discussions with you that it was not necessary to make a presentation. 

Jeremiah Manele:  I am Jeremiah Manele, Secretary to the Prime Minister.

Mr Chairman:  Let’s go to the questions.  It was noted in the Eminent Persons Group Report of 2005 that the difficulty with RAMSI aligning some of its activities with the policies of the Solomon Islands Government was partly because of SIG’s failure to provide a local counter parting arrangement.  In your experience in the administration of the Public Service, do you agree with that observation?  What in your opinion have successive governments since RAMSI’s arrival done to ensure that counter parting arrangements put in place by SIG are conducive to an alignment of RAMSI and SIG policies and activities?  What more can both RAMSI and SIG do to improve on the level of alignment between their respective policies and activities?  Can you be able to comment on that, please?

Mr Manele:  First of all thank you chairman and members of the Committee for the invitation to appear before this Committee and also to respond to some of the queries and questions that you put before me.  
            In response to your question, I think the difficult initially relates to the issue of capacity that we have in the Public Service, the limited capacity in terms of manpower, probably also to some extent the existing limitations that we have in terms of institutional capacity.  Those factors did contribute to the difficulty we have in terms of the counter parting arrangements. 
I understand that the Ministry in charge of this particular area, which is the Ministry of Public Service, has been taking measures to see how best we can improve the counter parting arrangements. 

Mr Chairman:  The next question is about pillars of operations in RAMSI.  Could you please explain to this Committee how your office has dealt with the pillars of operations of RAMSI?  Are you satisfied with the level of cooperation between your office and these pillars?  How do you feel about the reporting structure of the RAMSI pillars? 

Mr Manele:  We all know RAMSI has three pillars.  One is Law and Order, the second is Machinery of Government, and of course the third one is finance and economic reform. 
The role that PMO plays in these arrangements is mostly one of facilitating role.  I think the various departments that are much more directly involved are the Ministry of Police and Justice, of course, the Public Service, the Ministry of Finance, but we, of course, are kept informed of the progresses, the achievements or the difficulties that these arrangements may face.  This is the basis for the current work that we are doing in terms of the partnership framework - the SIG RAMSI Partnership framework, which very much builds on the work that RAMSI is doing in these three areas and also to see to what extent SIG priorities and strategies could be accommodated.  
The three pillars that you referred to are basically the basis of what we are trying to do in terms of the SIG/RAMSI Partnership Framework. 

Hon. Soalaoi:  This is regarding the partnership framework.  The understanding is that the framework is aimed at realigning the government and RAMSI priorities.  Can you briefly outline some of your current priorities and programs and how are you addressing capacity building in the Public Service?  What would you consider as the most impressive capacity building programs in the pillar under your responsibility and why they have been successful?  Lastly, which programs in your pillars would you consider as the most problematic areas, and if they are problematic why have they been problematic?  What changes can be expected in the new Framework and what is the rationale or need in each of the cases you would be discussing in the Framework?

Mr Manele:  Quite a number of questions there and so I’ll try my best to respond to them.  The three pillars or possibly four that we do have in the draft partnership framework because there is law and order, the Machinery of Government, which is the second one and then finance and economic reform, and in the current draft we do have one on economic development.  I think this is the area that our RAMSI colleagues are having some difficulties with, the fourth area that we are trying to accommodate in the framework - economic development.  Basically why, because economic development does not really directly relate to the initial that mandate that RAMSI was given.  RAMSI’s initial mandate is basically to restore law and order, revive the economy and of course strengthen government finances. 
            Different sectors are now working closely with their colleagues or counterparts in the RAMSI Office to see how some of these difficulties could be sorted out before we come to the actual consultations as a group between SIG and RAMSI. 
If I could ask you to repeat the other two parts of your question, please?  And I’m not sure whether I’ve answered your first question.

Hon. Soalaoi:  In fact, the question has several parts and you sort of answered all the parts when you responded.  Maybe the other thing is that it’s interesting to know, and we know it’s still a draft, when are you expecting to finalize the framework?

Mr Manele:  We are hoping to have a final agreement before the end of the year.  I will be in touch with the Special Coordinator’s Office early next week to set a date between November and early December during which those talks will take place.  
I’m sure it shouldn’t take us more than two weeks to come to a final agreement.  Of course, we may, if need be, have to go back to Cabinet if there are difficulties during the process.  At this stage it appears that about 70 to 80% of the document is sort of pretty much agreeable to both sides, and so we will focus on those areas that create difficulties and see how best we can come around those areas.  I’m pretty confident that we should have a final agreement or framework by the end of the year.  Thank you.

Mr Chairman:  I just want to ask that 20% or 30% that both sides are trying to negotiate right now, would one of them be the traditional donor and what RAMSI has to deliver?  Basically the demarcation between the responsibilities for those two or are there others?

Mr Manele:  I think it is mainly on the economic development aspect of the framework.  The SIG would like to see more involvement by RAMSI in the economic area in terms of infrastructure building for example, and RAMSI does have some difficulties there.  I think it’s not really within the initial mandate to undertake those.  But in the consultation it will also be helpful for us, the SIG side, for RAMSI to tell us which areas they are not comfortable with so that other bilateral donors could take up the other areas that RAMSI cannot do because it is not within their mandate.  About 20% to 30% of the difficulty, as I’ve said in terms of the draft is basically around the economic development aspects of the framework.

Mr Chairman:  Were their discussions about the legal framework?  Were there difficulties in discussions of the legal framework?

Mr Manele:  No, discussions in the consultations so far have been going on the basis of the current understanding and the current legal framework.  We have not really discussed the legal framework but this may come in if the consultations touch on the issue of mandate and it may involve some legal discussions in that regard. 

Hon. Soalaoi:  Whilst still on the same question, I would not be trying to preempt what will be the result, but there is a feeling that whatever the final draft will be will result in the extension of the mandate of RAMSI.  But having heard what you said, if the discussion touches on the legal framework then that would not be the likely way to go.  I’m just asking for your personal opinion whether you think that is possible?

Mr Manele:  If the discussions touch on mandates and legal frameworks, this will certainly require us to consult further on usually issues to do with RAMSI’s mandate and the legal framework under which it operates as issues that SIG will have to discuss in consultation with Forum Member Countries.  That is the process RAMSI being a regional initiative.  If SIG for example, intends that RAMSI expands or increases its mandate, it’s an issue that we have to take up with the Forum or with the troop contributing countries, and of course there are regional processes or mechanisms in place that we could sound out or discussion these intentions.  For example, we do have the Enhanced Consultative Mechanism at the officials’ level or the Forum Foreign Ministers’ Standing Committee on RAMSI.  These are the regional mechanisms or processes in place that the SIG could use if it intends to request for RAMSI’s mandate.  The SIG could also write to the Forum Chair to make that request or to express that it would like to see RAMSI’s mandate expanded or increased.  These are issues we would undertake in close consultations with Forum countries or troop contributing countries.  Thank you.

Mr Chairman:  Two more questions.  During the Provincial Premiers hearings, the Premiers expressed concern about the limited communication, coordination and consultation between provincial governments, the national government and RAMSI.  What has your office done in terms of setting up consultative programs and mechanisms between the SIG and Provincial Governments, and could you suggest how RAMSI might improve its relationship with the provincial governments?

Mr Manele:  Thank you Chair.  That is quite a difficult one.  You would recall that when the Premiers came back from the recent Lata Premiers’ Conference, our office did take the opportunity to share with them what we are doing in terms of the Partnership Framework.  So there was a one day session at the Honiara Hotel to get the Premiers together, discuss and explain to them what the RAMSI Partnership Framework is all about and how the provinces would be involved.
            Of course, I admit that there is a need to improve communication links between the national government and the provincial centres.  This is something that the Ministry of Provincial Government, as the mother ministry looking after the provinces would also need to look at to see how we can improve on that front.

Hon. Soalaoi:  I think this is the last question from me.  One of the programs under the Machinery of Government is to do with the improvement of effective cabinet and parliamentary processes.  What has RAMSI actually done to improve cabinet processes in our Cabinet?  Has anything been done and how effective is it? 
In your personal opinion, does this kind of program infringe on our sovereignty?  Basically because it has to do with cabinet and we certainly feel that some people will question whether outside assistance to cabinet processes might infringe on our sovereignty.  What are some of the challenges you face in respect of this program that are included under the Machinery of Government?

Mr Manele:  I don’t think RAMSI’s support or support from other donors to help improve Cabinet administrative processes infringe on our sovereignty.  What they are basically doing is to improve on some of the things that we should have improved on in the past in terms of updating certain documents, for example or ensuring that we comply with the timeframes for which Cabinet Papers should be submitted to Cabinet for Cabinet to deal with them.  Some of those programs basically help us to revive what we already have in place that we do not really implement.  I don’t think that is actually happening.  Cabinet is still Cabinet, confidential information is there, and as far as I see it, administratively, they are basically helping to improve on those administrative processes which would facilitate the cabinet process and they should make it.  Thank you.

Mr Chairman:  That is it, thank you Jerry Manele, Secretary to the Prime Minister.

Mr Jerry Manele:  Thank you Chairman.
PERMANENT SECRETARY OF MINISTRY OF NATIONAL UNITY

Mr Chairman:  Honorable Members of the Foreign Relations Committee, Mrs Joy Kere, Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of National Unity, Reconciliation and Peace, stakeholders and members of the Public, welcome to today’s hearing and thank you very much for accepting our Committee’s invitation for your participation in our inquiry into and review of matters relating to RAMSI.  In this hearing the Committee continues to hear from Permanent Secretaries in their respective capacity as senior administrators of the Solomon Islands Government.  We hope that this Committee will learn much from your daily contact and cooperation with RAMSI personnel.  We also hope that as with Permanent Secretaries we have already heard from, you too would assist our committee to understand the relationship between RAMSI and the Solomon Islands Government on the ground. 
Before we proceed, I wish to remind you that what you say in this hearing is protected by parliamentary privilege.  Note also that our proceeding today is being recorded by One News to be televised later and that the SIBC is also broadcasting these proceedings live. 
Let us now proceed with the hearing.  We will first hear a presentation from the witness before committee members ask any questions they wish to ask of the witness.  Could I now ask the witness to please state your name for the record and please proceed with your opening statement?

Mrs Kere:  Mr Chairman and Members of the Foreign Relations Committee, for the records, my name is Joy Kere, Permanent Secretary for the Ministry of National Unity, Reconciliation and Peace.  I am happy to appear before your Committee to participate in this important review of the Regional Assistance Mission to Solomon Islands hereby referred to as RAMSI.  Looking at the terms of reference of the Committee in this review, I understand that it is quite broad but one can appreciate the importance of this review and your important work. 
This review provides an opportunity for the pieces of legislation underpinning RAMSI’s mandate and its programs to be assessed, but also equally important for the government to reflect on its own responsibility and accountability in relation to this partnership. 
I have a brief general statement to present after which I will answer questions that may arise or haven’t provided.  With your concurrence Mr Chairman allow me to start. 
Mr Chairman, at the outset let me say that the Ministry of the National Unity, Reconciliation and Peace and RAMSI were conceived and born as a result and impact of the tensions.  Both entities were government responses to the violence and security crisis during those dark years of this country’s history.  Both entities from their inceptions have been created to assist in the return of peace and stability to Solomon Islands.  The Ministry is therefore a young ministry only established in 2000 through a policy decision by Cabinet.  Initially it was called the Department of National Unity, Reconciliation and Peace within the Ministry of Provincial Government.  The Department was originally established to facilitate the implementation of certain provisions of the Townsville Peace Agreement, since then its mandate has evolved and now includes taking a leading role in promoting peace and national unity through reconciliation. 
Furthermore, I wish to highlight that a ministry that addresses issues of national unity, reconciliation and peace is not common or it’s very uncommon among governments of the world.  Solomon Islands could be the first in the world amongst three others.  There are few such ministries globally and it is a testament to the priorities of successful governments that this ministry exists and addresses these significant issues.  
It is important to note that there were other formal indigenous peace making organizations established by government prior to RAMSI lending a helping hand provided for it in the TPA and operating during the immediate post conflict period.  The government established the Peace Monitoring Council (PMC) and the International Peace Monitoring team.  The PMC later became the National Peace Council.  These formal organizations commenced the process of creating peace during those early years when our law enforcement institutions could no longer guarantee protection and security to our people.  In many ways, these organizations struggled to fulfill their purpose and mandate.  However, when RAMSI arrived there was an opportunity to harmonize local level governance with the formal institutions of government.  This opportunity still exists.  This recipe is an important opportunity of what is required to adequately resolve some of the issues of our immediate past and enabled a stable and peaceful future. 
As a young ministry and a ministry that as such is still not a normal function of most governments, targeted RAMSI assistance to the Ministry under the three pillar structure of law and justice, economic reforms and the machinery of government has been limited.  This is not to say that RAMSI’s efforts are exclusive of those of the Ministry.  In many ways, the work that both entities undertake is complementary within a peace building purview. 
The Ministry of National Unity, Reconciliation and Peace has experienced an evolving mandate of role and function as peace and security issues have changed and improved over the last five years.  The continued existence of such a ministry is a reflection of successive governments who consistently prioritize peace building and reconciliation. 
Mr Chairman, I have spoken already about the similarities between RAMSI and the Ministry in that we share similar overall goals.  But that is where the similarities are at present.  I purposefully mentioned ‘at present’ because I encouraged strengthened partnership sometimes in the future between both entities. 
Mr Chairman, regardless of the similar mandates or goals to ensure peace and stability both the Ministry and RAMSI continue to work separately.  We focus on different areas of peace building but moving towards the same overall goals.  It would make sense to harmonize and connect some of these efforts in a coordinated manner.  It will be an opportunity forgone for Solomon Islands if there has not been direct support to encourage indigenous resolution of unresolved issues. 
Mr Chairman, I think we understand RAMSI’s focus lies in strengthened state institutions because of state building arguments associated with post conflict recovery.  The Ministry on the other hand focuses on facilitating and supporting national reconciliation and peace building.  This materializes through the National Reconciliation and Peace Program with the following specific outcomes:-

1. Completing truth and reconciliation processes and established what happened during the years of the conflict.  This also requires providing opportunity for reconciliation at all levels of society and addressing the concerns of victims.
2. Creating functioning networks and partnerships between stakeholders that identify and recognize potential conflict and work to resolve tensions.
3. Empowering community leaders to be able to deal with conflict and prevent outbreaks of violence.

 

In terms of the importance of some of the work of the Ministry in relation to the overall peace process and the RAMSI mandate, I wish to refer to the Pacific Islands Forum Review of RAMSI in June 2007, which also gave mention in Section 4 of its recommendations, titled that there is a strong desire for greater movement on reconciliation in Solomon Islands.  I think this is one of the recommendations of the Forum Review.  Strong effort in this area would be of great benefit to ensuring the long term stability and unity of Solomon Islands.  
The Forum review further noted that the Solomon Islands Government faces a number of important national challenges concerning devolutions, decentralization and reconciliation and addressing the causes of the ethnic tensions. 

Mr Chairman, recommendations 52 and 53, referring to the reconciliation process and the inquiry into root causes also bears relevance, and which the

Ministry endorses for this Committee’s consideration in relation to the review of the RAMSI mandate. 
RAMSI’s current role even in providing logistic support to the Ministry is very minimal, and so we don’t have any direct partnership with RAMSI or we don’t come directly under any of the pillar.  The report I am referring to, the Forum Report, recommended that it is important for the Forum to facilitate requests for further assistance to the Ministry importantly because the Ministry’s success in tackling some of these issues in relation to reconciliation will impact positively on RAMSI’s work. 
Having said that, the Ministry fully acknowledges that RAMSI capacity building and institutional strengthen work is already making an important contribution to nation building and peace building as well as helping the Solomon Islands Government exercise its sovereignty in a meaningful manner. 
Mr Chairman, while the above has been mentioned in the Pacific Islands Forum Reviews, the Act and the related policy frameworks have a notable absence of peace and peace building related provisions and indicators.  Understanding that the drafting of the Facilitation of International Act was in an environment when the priority was for the restoration of law and order and security, now that the environment has changed there seems to be a feasible argument that RAMSI policy frameworks incorporate peace and peace building provisions and indicators to facilitate and enable Solomon Islanders address tension related issues, reconciliation and creates viable and empowering mechanisms for addressing conflict. 
If RAMSI’s role is to assist in the long term stability of Solomon Islands then some effort and assistance is required to enable the Solomon Islands Government and its people, address and reconcile grievances in a manner that is meaningful to Solomon Islanders.  As we are all aware if grievances are not addressed appropriately and avenues for reconciliation are not provided then all the good work that has been presented by RAMSI might unravel. 
From the foregoing I provide three suggestions.  These are just suggestion for the Committee from the Ministry’s perspective, which I would like to highlight here that builds on some of the Forum Reviews recommendations:

1. That meaningful reconciliation and law and order be considered an indicator for success and that the RAMSI phased down is a condition.
2.  RAMSI reconsiders support where appropriate for the National Reconciliation process.  For example, through strengthening of local level governance and is encouraged to strengthen logistic support for the Ministry’s work. 
3. RAMSI facilitates through the Pacific Islands Forum the Solomon Islands Government request for timely support from other organizations such as the Commonwealth Secretariat and the United Nations towards a national reconciliation program. 

 

Mr Chairman, I understand that these recommendations may not require legislative amendments and rather they maybe incorporated into policy frameworks and can be addressed through the partnership framework.  But I believe presenting it at this higher political committee will give it that impetus and that importance. 
Finally Chairman and Members, I agree with many stakeholders who have appeared before this Committee and described the landscape and the scenario has since changed.  The time is right for discussion to ensure that to achieve what is sustainable for Solomon Islands.  We cannot afford to be complacent.  The government needs to clarify what it wants and the direction that needs to be undertaken to achieve the shared goals.  In the true spirit of partnership, friendship and good diplomacy the review is timely.
On behalf of the Ministry and the communities that we also serve, we must say thank you to RAMSI and governments and the peoples of the region for giving Solomon Islands the second chance at building a truly united, peaceful and progressive Solomon Islands. 
Mr Chairman, I thank you for the opportunity to present my views before this Committee.  Thank you.

Mr Chairman:  Thank you very much Mrs Kere.  Let me start.  We don’t have many questions here because you have very much answered most of them.  
You did say that peace and reconciliation and you have goals and they are very similar to the goals of RAMSI in that they are here for peace as well.  But they have gone about it in a way by building capacity, building infrastructure and looking at law and order.  You have also basically asked that they should be, correct if I am wrong, more directly involved in the reconciliation processes?  Is that correct?

Mrs Kere:  I’ll explain it.  Firstly, you are right from the Ministry’s perspective and we acknowledged the role of RAMSI, the mandate of RAMSI.  Where I mentioned about the similarity and the goals that we all worked towards is that in the final analysis what we want for Solomon Islands is sustainable peace.  That is where the strengthening of all the state institutions under RAMSI’s mandate, improvement of state institutions, economy, machinery of government, in the final analysis we hope that it will all lead to a peaceful and sustainable nation for Solomon Islands, and that is also progressive. 
While we understand that the overall picture in terms of the peace building approach, and so in that regard they are also doing peace building work.  But the peace building work they are doing is focused more on state institutions or the institutions of government.  What I am saying here and what the Ministry is currently doing through the National Reconciliation programs is looking more into the area of communities, local level governance.  That is where I am coming from.  There is still that opportunity where through some of the programs that the Ministry is doing, some of the program activities that we are doing there is the opportunity that’s presented where we could harmonize some of the work that we are doing in that regard. 
I am talking about here, for example and I’ve mentioned an example here in terms of areas where we could empower existing local level structures that we have.  Because in our reconciliation program that is the approach we take and it’s through empowering of our local level governance, our chiefly structures, our local communities, community based organizations.  It’s a process and not just a reconciliation ceremony at the end of that process.  It is through that process and helping the Ministry to facilitate that process that I am talking about. 
Currently what they are helping in is in terms of just ad hoc logistics support when, for example, if the Ministry goes out to the provinces or to parts of Guadalcanal.  Their logistics support is very limited to, for example, just a transport, and a helicopter to go across to Weather Coast and so on.  That is all that for of assistance we are receiving through RAMSI at the moment.

Mr Chairman:  Why do you think that is the case?  You said that the goals are very complementary, your Ministry and RAMSI’s goals are very complementary.  Why is there hesitancy to actually involve apart from basically giving logistics support getting you there, but not actually being part of the empowering, you would say, of the local institutions to push the peace process further on.  What do you think there is hesitancy?  And you’ve also said that it’s not because of the mandate, but it can be done through the partnership framework; there’s no need to change the mandate.  Why do you think there’s the hesitancy?

Mrs Kere:  I think basically there are certain sorts of key areas in reconciliation that is similar to may be land issues as well as cultural areas that may be RAMSI things that are best addressed by the Solomon Islands Government and by Solomon Islanders in terms of our cultural issues that we would understand better.  I think that is the sort of scenario that RAMSI feels that are areas of our traditional culture, our own social relationship issues that may be best addressed by the Solomon Islands Government and by Solomon Islands people. 
While that is so, and I think this is where the argument in terms of state building, state institutions focuses - strengthening state as opposed to local level governance or the informal systems within our traditional areas, and this is where reconciliation falls in.  But the argument I am trying to say here is that aspects of the reconciliation program, especially the timing that we have now after the conflict to move the process as identified by the Pacific Islands Forum Review Report, it’s very important that we pushed the process.  There are still other aspects of that program that RAMSI can still assist in.  While Solomon Islanders are taking the lead in determining the process, identifying the issues, getting the communities to talk about the issues, the dialogue processes, getting issues on the agenda, we are already taking the lead in that regard.  But I am talking about other aspects of logistic support but the other kind of support that may be under the program that it can be helpful and it is towards the peace building program as well.

Mr Chairman:  We were talking with Jerry just before you, the Secretary to the Prime Minister and he said that about 70 to 80 percent of the partnership framework is amenable to both the government as well as RAMSI.  I assume you have a submission inside that proposed framework.  Is that part of the 80 or the still negotiable part, a part of the 20 percent still being negotiated?

Mrs Kere:  In terms of the partnership framework, the SIG/RAMSI partnership framework you are referring to, I am talking about internal within government, discussions are still ongoing and going across to RAMSI, negotiating with RAMSI or discussing with RAMSI is the next step.  But what I am saying here is that it is identified there somewhere under one of the pillars as a government priority, the realigning that we are talking, being a government priority there.  But I think the issue here now is in terms of the mandate and in terms of that state institution focused as opposed to other local level governance issues that maybe sort of hindering it being incorporated in the partnership framework.  But otherwise there are still opportunities that I see if we look at the programs within what we mean by national reconciliation and peace building program.  There are certain activities that RAMSI can be able to assist under the existing pillars.

Mr Chairman:  I think it’s very important that that’s the reason why RAMSI is here and that if we can’t sustain peace even when we’ve restored law and order, there is capacity building and institutional strengthening, but in the end it boils down to us wanting peace, and I assume if we don’t get it, you may even say that RAMSI has failed.  But I guess they are working in the right track.

Hon Soalaoi:  I was going to ask a question on some of the challenges that you might be facing in your efforts to ensure that peace building is sustainable after RAMSI leaves Solomon Islands.  You mentioned in your statement economic development.  Economic development would be crucial in ensuring that our peace building efforts are sustainable.  If there is not enough economic development then our people will still struggle to survive in these challenging times and would cause them to do some of the things that might not be helpful to our peace building efforts. 
Also with regards to economic development, do you think that the current level and maybe the phase of development happening in the country at the moment is enough to ensure that peace is sustainable? 

Mrs Kere:  That’s a good question in that peace is a cross cutting issue.  It is a development issue, it is land issue in terms of what you are referring to as employment opportunity, opportunities for people to live a decent life, all those impact on the level of stability within a nation. 
Your question is quite a broad question in terms of whether the level of economic development now will lead on to improvement in peace within the country.  I don’t have a direct answer to that question, but that is one of the key critical issues that will impinge on peace and security in the country; the level of opportunities that people will have access to economic development.  Of course, you would all know that we have a very young population as well who are looking for educational opportunities, employment opportunities and whether the development programs we are doing will be able to sustain that need and that demand within our nation.  I think those are some of the issues that impinge on peace and security within our country.

Hon Sopaghe:  What do you see as some of the successes and failures and areas of improvement of RAMSI programs in the area of peace and reconciliation during the last five years? 

Mrs Kere:  In terms of sort of direct assistance to the Ministry’s programs, as I have said, at the moment it’s very limited although I must acknowledge and say upfront here that the work of RAMSI has helped a lot in the reconciliation processes that we’re doing.  Of course, without law and order people won’t be able to try rebuilding relationships, taking the initiative to rebuild the relationships as well. 
Law and order has had a direct impact as well on getting peoples to move ahead and address some of those issues, especially in the restorative justice areas where communities feel much freer to talk about some of these issues that had happened and gone ahead and reconciled amongst themselves as well.  In that regard, in terms of the work of the Ministry, there is a lot of impact on RAMSI programs here, on law and order across the other sectors which have helped the programs in moving forward. 

Mr Chairman:  How do you define peace?  How do you know when we get there?  Can you enlighten me on when do you know that you’ve got there?

Mrs Kere:  You’re quite right.  Peace is a very broad concept; peace can mean different things to different people.  Peace is not just the absence of violence.  For example, peace is also maybe to a woman just making sure there’s food on the table or making sure that children have access to basic education.  So peace is not just the absence of violence.  Even the term ‘peace building’ too is very broad and it can be interpreted and have different meanings in the work that we do.  So peace building term is very broad and how we go about implementing our various activities and programs, peace building activities is also different. 
As I have said, for the Ministry, our peace building program was through the reconciliation process, and it is a process.  Peace building means communities owning the reconciliation process, communities being able to resolve conflicts in a non violent way, communities being able to organize themselves to address violence or issues of governance within their villages.  Those are some of the key strategies that we use. 
Peace building too is like giving the dialogue process, the forum where people can come together and talk over issues and empowerment strategy is one of the key works that we are trying to do.  RAMSI’s programs are in that context as well but longer term and in a different approach is also part of the peace building strategy.

Mr Chairman:  It just seems to me that if peace depended on so many things then it’s almost every ministry that we have in the government that have to work towards peace.  It looks like it’s going to be a very long time.  Is that an assessment that you have to, it’s a very long building process that we have to go through and where’s its end?  Is it with insight?  We were already talking about exit strategies for RAMSI here, but where are the benchmarks for peace?  Could you tell us?

Mrs Kere:  I think that is a very good point, and as I have said peace is a cross cutting issue, it cuts across all the sectors.  Everybody has a role to play in building peace.  It’s an economic development issue, agriculture issue, land issue, police, law and justice issue that we have to be responsible to ensuring that there is peace.  Even in resource distribution, it determines whether our country moves forward and be stable or it can create conflict.  Resources can also create conflict and it can also create peace.  It is also a governance issue, a leadership issue whether a country moves forward and remains stable and is able to progress ahead. 
Coming back to the question, it’s an ongoing process I would like to say that today.  In every decision that we continue to make, and even RAMSI building these institutions is for Solomon Islanders to have strong institutions that they can run and lead and continue to govern the country, and a stronger economy. 
In terms of the work of the Ministry, the reconciliation process that I’ll come back to, I understand that will people think when is this going to end, where are we are going to reach, where will we achieved our goals at the end.
I think some of the expected outcomes of what we hope to achieve is what I am talking about, and that’s empowering of our people to own the process, empowering our local structures to be able to identify what are the issues that will cause conflict or result in violence.  How can we address some of these issues ourselves without having to fall back on the formal institutions of law and order? 
The reconciliation process that we are looking at is addressing some of those immediate issues arising from the conflict itself and looking at some of the underlying or root causes that have given rise to the conflict.  I know it’s quite an abstract thing to understand but some of the examples that we used, some of the community works that we used, like for example like between the two provinces that were directly involved, their issues, their demands that have been made, and that is there that government need to address.  We need to go back to the communities, present those forums where people identify those issues and these are the issues between our communities as a result of the conflict, these are issues in relation to other provinces, these are the issues that will come back to the government. 
From the Ministry, the process itself of getting affected people to come together and dialogue and talk over issues is very important, a very important peace building strategy and leading it up to government decision making.  I’ll give you an example we have referred to and government has these mechanisms in place, like for example the Commission of Inquiry into Land Dealings, are some of the issues that we need to keep on talking about, put them on the agenda and back to government to seriously consider, go back and inform the people so that they are informed on where there are.  Those are outstanding issues and plus, of course, within the Ministry the establishment of the other important mechanisms of government is the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. 
The process of talking through some of these issues are historical issues that have been brought up over the years, they’ve been part of our history, which had led to the result of the violence.  Now it’s talking through those kind of issues with people who are affected.  It is very important for the country for a country that has gone through violence.  We cannot just bury it without talking through those issues.  It is quite important that people talk over those issues so that actual process itself is very important, it’s equally important for government just addressing economic and development issues and moving.

Mr Chairman:  There was a question I asked the Speaker yesterday on the Truth and Reconciliation Commission about peace.  Can we really have peace without justice first?  What’s your view on that? 

Mrs Kere:  That’s an important question on the issue of truth, justice, reconciliation and forgiveness.  Your question what comes first and what processes, I think it really depends on different cases as well.  For example, on the issue of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, some have been through our judicial system through the courts, and have served their terms in terms of justice being done in terms of the victims’ perspective.  But coming back to the issue of reconciliation, that is still important in terms of building relationships. 
I think one other issue I must highlight here is that in the context of Solomon Islands, I am talking about the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, Solomon Islands is a small country and our relationship, sort of extended family relationship in that even if somebody goes to the court as a result of some of the ethnic tension related things, their relatives and their people are still out there in the communities, they still have to live together and that is still important in terms of rebuilding relationships.  In a way it also supports the retributive justice system that we have here or the justice system that we have here.

Mr Chairman:  I’ve heard people talked about to me, and this is again on the Truth and Reconciliation Commission that we are establishing, one of the things they said to me is the other way round.  They said let sleeping dogs lie.  What do you say about that?

Mrs Kere:  That is one opinion; I mean that is one side of the coin where people will say we’ve moved ahead.  But look at the objectives, the principle objectives of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission for Solomon Islands.  I’m talking about one for Solomon Islands, which needs to address our own contextual issues here, is to promote national unity and reconciliation.  It is giving that opportunity, giving that forum an opportunity where people can come and also tell the other side of the story.  I think that is important - giving that opportunity, the voluntary process where people will feel free to come and make statements or want to talk to the Commission.  But it’s giving that opportunity where people can come and talk.  Also for the real stories to be recorded is quite important.  A TRC in the Solomon Islands’ context is giving that opportunity. 
Based on public consultations that we have had to see whether we should have a TRC or mandates and roles, there were sort of other public opinions as well that people want to tell their other side of the story to have that healing and closure for them.

Mr Chairman:  The word ‘closure’ is important in that.

Hon. Soalaoi:  PS under your budget for 2008 both under the consolidated and non-consolidated funds of your development projects, you have a number of important projects that you want to implement this year to help you achieve the peace building initiatives that you’ve come up with within the Ministry.  Can you update the committee on the progress of those projects and perhaps also your assessment on the impacts of those projects in the course of this year?

Mrs. Kere:  As I have alluded to earlier, the Ministry comparatively to all the other ministries is a smaller ministry in terms of capacity, in terms of human resources and of course the development budget or the finances that we have access to, to implement our programs. 
Under the development budget, we have two projects there that we are implementing.  And I’m happy to inform that in the Ministry it is the government that is playing a major role in funding the national reconciliation and the peace programs that the Ministry is responsible for. 
The other project under the donor funding is the UNDP one, which we are still waiting on in terms of the strengthening capacities for peace building.  That one is yet to fully start.  The other one on government funded is the national reconciliation and peace building program.  This is the major component where we have about $5million for the INTRA Provincial Reconciliation processes.  If we refer to the CNURA Government Policy Statement, there is this clear policy statement about facilitating.  I’m talking here about facilitating, the Ministry facilitating reconciliation processes focusing at the moment; we’re focusing a lot on the two provinces that were directly involved in a conflict on Guadalcanal and Malaita.  Internally we are having constituency based reconciliation programs going on in Malaita and also on Guadalcanal, and the program with the government funding is also funding mechanisms.  For example for Guadalcanal Province we have a Guadalcanal Peace Building and Reconciliation Committee that comprises of the Provincial Government and stakeholders within the Guadalcanal province. 
I am highlighting these peace building mechanisms because these are very important mechanisms that would coordinate the programs within the two respective provinces.  And it is very important that we get feedbacks as well at the community level.  It is under that program that we have these peace building mechanisms.  
Malaita, as well has gone ahead.  We have had a number of INTRA within the province itself sorting out ethnic tension related issues that have come up within the Province - rebuilding their relationships within that Province and similarly with Guadalcanal.  
Solving the activities, as I have said, is not just for the reconciliations ceremonies per se at the end.  It is that process of getting communities organized.  You will find a lot of them have already organized themselves within their wards based on issues within those respective wards, and so government helps to facilitate those meeting.  For example, like in areas of East Guadalcanal Constituency we’ve had a similar kind of peace building committee being set up.  These are the mechanisms I was referring to in terms of helping them taking the lead and ownership process.  I think that is one of the misconceptions that people have that reconciliation is just for the reconciliation ceremony at the end, the big feasting or just paying compensation.  No, it’s a process of people talking through what is true and meaningful reconciliation and using the strengths of reconciliation in our Christian principles and our traditional ways; principles of reconciliation, harmonizing those and making sure it works for the community.  I think those are the processes that have to take time and empowering our mechanisms.  We have done that. 
We are also part of this program in looking at Western Province issues and of course we are also now focusing on the inter provincial reconciliation between the two provinces, those that are directly involved in the conflict, looking at some of those issues at the provincial level that they will want to talk about.  As I have said, I am reemphasizing again the importance of sitting down together and talking over those issues.  Even if it’s at the institutional level, at the provincial government level, but the process of sitting and talking directly across the table is an important part of the heaving process that I think this country needs to facilitate, the government needs to facilitate.  Thank you. 
So the impacts as you have asked and plus of course, as I have said, the Truth and Reconciliation Act with its passage now, we are now implementing that as well at the preparatory phase.  Some technical assistance are here now with the Ministry to look at helping a secretariat to the Commission to start now.  We are now in that process. 
The impacts, of course, as I have said, as a lot of us would appreciate that after the conflicts, we also suffered the negative legacy of the issue of compensation.  That was a big issue that has sort of in filtered a lot of our way of building peace and sorting out grievances.  This process as well is quite important when people or communities talk through what is a true and meaningful reconciliation, what does our custom say, what does our church say, what does the government say or our law say.  That thinking through is very important. 
I’m beginning to see that it has helped a lot in terms of some of the impacts.  Of course, there will be areas that still come up, it will still come up, but then people rethink again, rethink and try to define and interpret it to us, what is true and meaningful reconciliation to us, where does the compensation issue feature, but it gives them that opportunity to think.  I think those are some of the impacts that people are saying that whilst this is the issue that we might want to talk about there are other ways of solving them, there are other ways of addressing some of those issues, and I think this is where the process of empowering communities is very important.  We are doing it in a small, small way but it is some of the processes that may be the government should promote.  Thank you.

Mr Chairman:  It does sound like we as part of our community as well as our national government, our provincial governments, out local governments have to take the front line on this.  It doesn’t sound like, from the things that you’ve talked about and I’ve learnt a lot from what you said that RAMSI may not be able to do it in that way.  I still haven’t got what you want RAMSI to be involved in.  If you can make it specific because it sounds like the SIG has to take the front line on this one.  What do you want RAMSI to be involved in from your Ministry?

Mrs Kere:  I understand in the law and justice sector they are looking at traditional law and the other areas of constitutional reform.  They are also looking at issues of strengthening chiefs’ roles and things like that. 
I’m talking about some of the immediate post conflict issues that the government needs to talk about at this time.  It was in 2003 that RAMSI came and there’s now that opportunity where people are able to come together for the first time and talk about some of these issues.  And some of these issues are very burning issues to our provinces and to our people who were affected.  While I’m talking about some of the impacts, of course, it impacted on all the provinces, they were also affected and this is where I’m talking about where the Truth and Reconciliation Commission will also embrace the other provinces as well so that the issue of reconciliation is not only focused on the two provinces that were involved. 
Where I’m coming from in terms of the Ministry was that while understanding that RAMSI cannot tread on those very traditional roles as to them it will be very sensitive issues where they feel they are not the right people to talk about reconciliation for us.  I understand that. 
The point I’m trying to make here is that the government and the community or the ministry for that matter are taking the leading role and we are identifying the process.  What we are just asking maybe RAMSI’s consideration and assistance as part of our peace building program is to help us and support us in some of the work we are doing.  I’m emphasizing a lot on the empowerment of our local structures and reconciliation - the process itself.  Helping through the Ministry to take that leading role, is what I’m saying, and not for them to actually go out in the field and do the work.

Mr Chairman:  That would be, I assume, financial... 

Mrs Kere:  Financial assistance and even logistics.  Right now it’s just minimal, and nothing.  Now and again we get a helicopter and fly to the Weather Coast, and that’s all.  But what I’m saying here is that I’m sure some of may be just a left over somewhere from RAMSI can help boost our reconciliation process, the role of the Ministry is to facilitate some of those work even much, much better. 

Hon. Soalaoi:  A last one.  I heard you mention in your statement something about indigenous organizations and perhaps that’s referring to the former NPC.  I’ve just wondering, what is the level of engagement between local communities, the government and RAMSI in the absence of NPC?

Mrs Kere: Yes, I made reference to indigenous organizations that were appointed by the government at different stages of the peace process.  They were at that time sort of appointed by government and doing a lot of the field work.  They were in that regard seen as an implementing arm, so to speak, of the government or the ministry for that matter. 
As I have alluded to, the ministry is also very a young ministry.  If you look at the emphasis of its functions, if you look at when it was first established from 2000 to 2002, the emphasis then was on the compensation, the EXIM loan disbursement and that issue.  It was only say in 2003, since RAMSI in and when the loan was exhausted and then we move on to 2004 that the emphasis was more into focusing on reconciliation, reintegration and rehabilitation of direct victims of the conflict.  So the emphasis and the role of the Ministry has also changed.
You are quite right in terms of the NPC being out in the field at the time of the peace process, and of course, contextual, the environmental has also changed. 
Whilst the review that was conducted on the National Peace Council, given the change in the environment then because NPC when it immerged from the former Peace Monitoring Council, the emphasis then was on a lot on disarmament, collection of weapons, surrender of weapons and then its role sort of evolved as well.  I am talking because I used to be on the former Cease Fire, Peace Monitoring and the National Peace Council and now with the government, so to speak, and so I’ve sort of had the benefit of working in both sides during different stages of the process. 
The Ministry in terms of building the capacity and now that the NPC is finished and they still defer the decision whether to establish another Peace and Integrity Council, we are trying to network with existing organizations out in the field. 
Local communities, I think, there are communities that have establish their peace and reconciliation committees as well, ward level and constituency level.  I think that is the approach for Guadalcanal.  In Malaita, field mediators were appointed and some of the former national peace council field mediators were used as well to do some of the mediation work.  But we try and work through the churches.  We work through like, for example, the World Vision helps the Ministry as well in terms of running conflict resolution workshops for some of our stakeholders or for field mediators.  We work through the churches in the absence of sort of having another field organization out in the field. 
It is a cost effective approach as well in dealing directly with the communities when they also have their own committees already set up that they are very close to.  The other option is to use, when is required we use church leaders who are already within the communities to do some of the work.  That is the strategy that we are using.  
To move up to the inter provincial level sort of issues, the Cabinet has also approved the appointment of a national reconciliation eminent persons group, so that, for example when we’re looking at provincial level issues then we can take senior citizens of this country to help facilitate some of those important talks. 
Those talks, as I have said, again are very important.  It’s a process of talking through some of the issues.  They have heard things in the media about issues across the table and talking over issues, it is part of the healing process.  Thank you.

Mr Chairman:  We don’t have anymore question but thank you very much Mrs Joy Kere, Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of National Unity, Reconciliation and Peace.  Thank you very much and good luck.

Mrs Kere:  Thank you very much Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee.

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTION

 

Mr Chairman:  Honorable members of the Foreign Relations Committee, Ronald Talasasa, Director of Public Prosecutions, stakeholders and members of the Public, on behalf of this Committee I extend my sincere gratitude and welcome to the Director of Public Prosecutions for availing yourself for the purpose of our inquiry.  You are the final witness for today and we thank you for your patience and willingness particularly this late in the day. 
As you may know, this Committee has heard from numerous witnesses over the past few weeks.  One such was the Head of the Judiciary, the Honorable Chief Justice.  We are thus pleased to be given this opportunity to hear from a specific and very aspect of the Judiciary that being the Criminal Justice System from the view point of the DPP’s Office.  We acknowledge your working relationship with RAMSI and hope that the Committee will learn more from you about the impact of RAMSI on Prosecutions and the Criminal Justice System in general. 
For your information pleased be advised that this hearing is protected by parliamentary privilege.  Moreover today’s proceedings are being broadcast live by the SIBC and also recorded by One News so that they could be televised later for the benefit of those with television coverage. 
We will proceed now with the hearing.  We’ll first hear a 15 or 20 minutes presentation from the witness after which members of this Committee will ask questions of the witness.  Could I now ask the witness to please state your name for the record and to please proceed with your opening statement? 

Ronald Bei Talasasa:  Thank you Mr Chairman.  My name is Ronald Bei Talasasa, and I am the Director of Public Prosecutions of Solomon Islands.  Thank you Mr Chairman, and members of the Foreign Relations Committee for inviting me to make my submission in my capacity as the Director of Public Prosecutions. 
            The Office of the DPP is afforded authority as an independent office in relation to criminal proceedings in Solomon Islands in the Constitution.  The focus of my submission is to remind the Committee of the importance of the preservation of independence to this Office to ensure the rule of law is maintained in Solomon Islands. 
The RAMSI intervention came in 2003 with an aim that included the restoration of law and order.  It can be said that law and order has been restored but the maintenance of this is an ongoing goal.  The RAMSI intervention has also brought with it questions as to the maintenance of sovereignty in Solomon Islands. 
Sovereignty is, of course, a fundamental need for any country.  Any international assistance must ensure that assistance and institutional strengthening occurs in a framework such that sovereignty is not eroded.  The assistance of RAMSI advisors in the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions has demonstrated that on a practical level, institutional strengthening can occur without improper influence of the assisting countries and is conducted in such a manner that the independence of the Office is maintained. 
However, the immunity provided in Section 17 of the Facilitation of International Act is a particular example where the authority of the DPP and potentially the sovereign jurisdiction of Solomon Islands, is improperly restricted.  Such usurping of the authority of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) is arguably contrary to the independence of the Office.  Any review of the immunity provisions in the Facilitation of the International Assistance Act would need to include consideration of the basis of this Act, which includes the RAMSI Treaty, that is the Agreement between Solomon Islands, Australia, New Zealand, Fiji, Papua New Guinea, Samoa and Tonga that was entered into force on the 24th July 2003.  This Agreement was transformed into domestic law in the Facilitation of the International Assistance Act to give effect to the terms of the Agreement. 
Article 10 of the Treaty is reflected in Section 17 of the Facilitation of International Assistance Act.  Section 17(5) of the Act provides the mechanism for how the immunity provision is to be applied such that the Minister responsible for Justice shall be deemed to have directed the Director of Public Prosecutions that he is to initiate no action with respect to members of the visiting contingent for actions referred to in subsections 1 and 2, unless the assisting country has expressly consented to the exercise of such jurisdiction.  This subsection may be open to the interpretation that it fetters the authority of the DPP. 
Section 91 of the Constitution provides that the Office of the DPP is amongst other powers afforded the authority to institute and undertake criminal proceedings against any person before any court in respect of any offence alleged to have been committed by that person.  At first glance, the immunity provisions of the Facilitation of International Assistance Act would seemingly place a restriction on the independence of the office of the DPP as provided for in the Constitution of this country.  It is noted that subsection 7 of Section 91 of the Constitution provides that in the exercise of the powers conferred on him by this section, the DPP shall not be subject to the direction or control of any other person or authority, provided that where any case in anyway concerns the defense, security or international relations of Solomon Islands, the DPP shall bring the matter to the attention of the minister responsible for justice and shall in the exercise of his powers in relation to that case, act in accordance with any directions that the Minister may give to him. 
The relationship between this subsection of the Constitution and the Facilitation of International Assistance Act are seemingly relevant and can potentially coexist in relation to members of the Police Forces or armed forces.  There is also a strong argument for the necessity of this immunity to be in place to ensure members of the visiting contingent are able to properly perform their responsibilities and duties under RAMSI.  However, the Act is somewhat ambiguous whether it was meant to contemplate the situation involving a civilian member of the visiting contingent or what is meant by actions that are incidental to official duties.  It is submitted that it maybe contrary to the interests of justice that the DPP is subject to a direction from the Minister for Justice in such a situation.  How can it be proper that the DPP to initiate a prosecution where a member of the visiting contingent is alleged to have committed a criminal offence when there are civilian members of the contingent and/or have allegedly committed the offence outside of official duties requires a direction from the Minister of Justice.  Is this not encroaching on the independence of the Office? 
From a practical position there is yet to be a situation when assisting country asserts jurisdiction.  However, the converse to this has a reason.  While, of course, each case must assessed on a case by case basis, clarification in the Facilitation of International Assistance Act as to when subsection of 7 of section 91 of the Constitution is empowered such that the Office of the DPP is subject to directions of the Minister of Justice, is suggested as being necessary. 
It is ultimately submitted that a fundamental consideration in reviewing the immunity provisions of the Facilitation of International Assistance Act must give consideration to the potential conflict between section 17 of the Act and the independence of the DPP that is preserved in section 91 of the Constitution of Solomon Islands. 
The RAMSI intervention has brought to Solomon Islands peace and the rule of law.  As we move into the future we must ensure that this good ground work is continued without fetters on the independence of an office that is a corner stone to the continued rule of law in Solomon Islands. 

The future of RAMSI in the Justice Sector
In the Office of the DPP to date, RAMSI has provided support by way of advisors and through resources.  Much has been achieved as a result and a good foundation has being built.  However, the development of the office of the DPP is at a critical stage.  The office has only recently attracted a sufficient number of legal graduates to have the office sufficiently staffed.  It is very early days in the capacity development of these lawyers, while capacity development is still occurring with the more experienced prosecutors.  The Office has also recently undergone a significant structural change and further work is to be done to refine the structure to ensure its sustainability. 
The Office continues to conduct complex prosecutions including matters from the tension period to appear in complex legal matters that are shaping the future of law in Solomon Islands and actively participate in law reform submissions.  Legal work of this level requires highly skilled and experienced prosecutors, which with no criticism of the hardworking and dedicated local prosecutors in the office is not a staff resource that is available to the Solomon Islands Office of the DPP without RAMSI advisors.  Unfortunately at this critical stage, the provision of advisors and resources to the Office of the DPP is being reduced.  This reduction at such a critical time is leading to the undermining of the foundation that has been built and is premature.  Without continued support, the capacity development of new prosecutors will not be possible and the institutional strengthening that has occurred to date will likely crumble.  This same trend can be observed in other agencies in the Justice Sector such as the Public Solicitor’s Office and the Courts, and it is disappointing to observe that the full potential of the Solomon Islands Justice Sector may not be reached in the foreseeable future. 
While the Solomon Islands prosecutors of the Office of the DPP will continue to dedicate themselves to the rule of law and serving the citizens of Solomon Islands irrespective of RAMSI’s presence, the continued full support of RAMSI is needed if the Solomon Islands Office of the DPP is to reach its corporate and strategic goals and be a leader of prosecution offices in the Pacific.  Such a position for the Office not only serves to protect the rule of law in the country but also plays an integral role in the maintenance of a just and peaceful Solomon Islands.  Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Mr Chairman:  Thank you very much Director of Public Prosecutions.  Let me start with a question.  One of the issues relating to RAMSI that is relevant to the Criminal Justice System is that of privileges and immunities and you’ve talked about that in your submission.  In your view, are privileges and immunities provided under the Facilitation Act consistent with standard international law and practice, particularly where immunity is raised as a defense to a criminal charge?  In 2005, the PNG Supreme Court declared that certain immunities given to Australian Police Personnel operating in PNG under the Enhanced Cooperation Program was unconstitutional.  What in your opinion makes Solomon Islands case different from that in PNG?

Mr Talasasa: It is important to consider that in the light of the agreement that was reached before RAMSI contingent came into Solomon Islands.  It is also important to note the condition that is provided for or that was the basis for the sending country to allow its police or military personnel to come to Solomon Islands.  That really is a matter for the parties to the agreement to consider. 
In my view, my submission specifically relates to the provision that provides for the immunities as opposes to the independence of the Office of the DPP as provided for under section 91 of the Constitution. 

Hon. Soalaoi:  DPP, just for the information of the Committee, in terms of RAMSI lawyers assisting your office, are you in a position to inform the Committee of how many lawyers are assisting the Office of the DPP apart from the local lawyers that you have?

Mr Talasasa:  The number of RAMSI advisors who have been working in my office has reduced from more than 10 to 6 and for next year will only be four.  It has been further reduced.  There a 9 local prosecutors plus myself, and so there are 10 of us.  To answer your question, currently there are six advisors and that will be further reduced to four in 2009. 

Hon. Soalaoi:  I must thank you for that information.  Still related to that question, in your opinion how much longer would you need advisors before we can consider our local lawyers as being competent enough to take over from what the advisors are currently doing at the moment?

Mr Talasasa:  It is quite difficult to give a definite period because the experience that is required to be acquired by a local prosecutor, for example, a prosecutor that is recruited this year will take some time to acquire the relevant and appropriate experience to be able to deal with complex legal issues.  Generally speaking, it usually takes more than five years for one lawyer to have the necessary experience to deal with complex legal matters that may arise in a particular case.  I am, however, asking the advisors in my office, and they are fully aware of it, to deal with capacity building in a more proactive way.  The capacity building that is now occurring in my office is real, is appropriate and is active.  I am sure that the one lawyer who is recruited this year, I’m giving an example, will be in a position to deal with complex legal issues by 2010.  It is a period of three to five years, but as I said it really depends on a case by case basis, and I’m not in a position to give a definite time period.

Mr Chairman:  In your experience as the Director of Public Prosecution, do you think the Judiciary has given tension related criminal cases sufficient attention since the arrival of RAMSI? 

Mr Talasasa:  Yes, priority has been given to tension related matters, and that has been the reason for the other cases that are not tension related to be put back and have taken sometime to be heard. 

Mr Chairman:  What percentage if you can approximate the tension related cases that are still pending for your Office to prosecute?

Mr Talasasa:  A definite number maybe given you Mr Chairman later, but what I have at present is less than maybe from 15 to 20. 

Mr Chairman:  The Committee understands that in some tension cases convictions were subsequently overturned on appeal.  How many of such cases occur during your time as DPP, and what in your opinion is the reason for this? 

Mr Talasasa:  This question is quite sensitive Mr Chairman, and I will not want to be unfair to my predecessor.  This question attracts a scrutiny of how matters were investigated and how matters were prosecuted.  It would be unfair on my part to give an answer that would compare with my predecessors.  Basically what I maybe in a position to say Mr Chairman in relation to that is that the rate of conviction and the number of appeals that have been upheld were appeals lodged by the defence and comparably balanced.  And I’m happy with the way development has come to stage at this present time from the time I took up office up until now.  I’m happy with the way the office has developed. 

Mr Chairman:  Thank you.  That question was basically asked because there were some accusations that the reason why these cases have been overturned on appeal was the clumsiness of some of the lawyers that are prosecuting those cases.  I don’t want to mention who they were but this is why I am asking that question because other witnesses prior to you have said this to us and that is why I asked you that question.

Mr Talasasa:  Thank you Mr Chairman.  That is well understood and people even witnesses or victims will have their own way of drawing conclusions as to why the case did not arrive at their convictions or even if on appeal by the defense it is upheld or the conviction is overturned on appeal really varies; the reasons varies from technical as well as based on other matters.  But I am not in a position to say as what other people outside of this forum might have alluded to.  
Mr Chairman, if I may add that the development that is now going on in my office, I am very impressed and very happy with the current advisors that I have.  That can only be seen by the results of the cases that have been dealt with in court.  I would like to invite the committee to look at judgments of cases that have been dealt with from 2007 up until this year. 

Hon. Soalaoi:  Mr Chairman, just one last question from me and it’s still related to the ethnic cases.  Can you confirm whether when the office concentrated on tension related issues that somehow created a backlog of cases that are not related to the tension?  Does that mean that there are still a lot of cases to be heard or we might want to call it a backlog that is now putting pressure on your office to ensure that cases are heard because people are waiting and they want their cases to be heard?  Has that affected your ability to deal with cases as they come in?  There are complaints that people are still waiting to hear their cases.  We now understand the reasons because we are paying more attention to issues that are tension related, to say it in a more straightforward way. 

Mr Talasasa:  That question is a very important question and is a question that continues to linger in our minds.  The office has conducted an audit of the cases that we have and we are also being made aware of the ongoing investigation of tension related matters, and so that may increase.
The cases that I have at present in my office in relation to that type of case, I have informed the Committee is about 15 to 20.  There is a backlog of cases, and many accused people have been waiting for their cases to be dealt with and the victims are also waiting for matters affecting them to be dealt with.  
My office has also suggested that because of the reduction of the number of prosecutors in my office who are able to deal with such cases, especially the advisors and the ability of the local prosecutors because a number of them have just been recruited, because of that reduction we have been proposing to the Case Listing Meeting that we can only deal with two or three cases a month, and this may or may not be further reduced next year. 
Yes, there is a backlog of cases and from four to five cases in a month we are now suggesting that we can only deal with two to three cases a month.  That is a difficulty and is a real problem. 

Mr Chairman:  I only have one question left and is a very broad one.  What approach would you like RAMSI to take in terms of its programs in the Judiciary within the next few years?

Mr Talasasa:  Perhaps I would answer that question Mr Chairman from the point of view of what is there in my office and in the perspective of my office.  I have been thinking about what the future will be like.  Reliance has been made previously on the assistance that RAMSI advisors are providing to my office, particularly in terms of capacity building, mentoring of local prosecutors and in the discharge of duties in court. 
In the beginning of this year up to the middle of the year, I have been emphasizing a change of direction.  This is a step up on the part of the local prosecutors to be proactive in their own capacity building.  I have asked the RAMSI personnel in my office to begin to step aside and give more work to local prosecutors to deal with cases, and that has started to be done. 
The future of RAMSI advisors in my office is more towards helping local prosecutors to develop his capacity to be able to deal with complex cases and to be able to make submissions to the Law Reform Commission for law reform.  It is also important to note at this Committee that the RAMSI advisors in my office are fully aware of that and have given themselves to the cause of developing the capacity of local prosecutors.  I am happy with the way things are currently being done. 
Now, I am anticipating that by 2010 there will be fewer advisors in the office and it would have to be a challenge on the part of local prosecutors to step up.  There have been one or two advisors that have gone who are relevantly and appropriately experienced but were only in the office for 12 months, for example, and they left at the end of the 12 months. 
On my part at present in anticipation of the fact that some of the advisors we are currently relying on may leave soon, we are fully utilizing their time to help with capacity building.  The emphasis at present and for the future in my office is for RAMSI advisors to play a back seat role and get local prosecutors ahead and to step up to the challenge.

Mr Chairman:  And you’re saying they’re doing that.

Mr Talasasa:  That is correct.

Mr Chairman:  And you’re actually happy with the situation as it is, you wouldn’t change anything. 

Mr Talasasa:  That is correct.  The great change or break through in this started at the beginning of this year, and I’m happy with the way that this has happened.  If I could mention that this is happening because I brought in with the assistance of the RAMSI Law and Justice Sector Program one very senior prosecutor from Queensland who is the Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions of Queensland to come at the end of last year and assisted me in developing the structure of the office.  That has brought about the establishment of a strategic plan for the office, and that has been an ongoing achievement.  I’m very happy with the way change has come about in my office.  But that was only being able to be done because of the sincerity of the people who are there in the office, the RAMSI advisors and the generosity of the funding agency.  If that is not happening, if the RAMSI advisors are not sincere, we would not have been able to achieve what we have been achieving, and we will not be able to develop in the way that my office has developed up to this stage. 
That is not enough, we still need continued assistance from those who are sincere with their work.  I am happy to say that the present staff I have, the RAMSI Advisors, are very sincere and are very capable in discharging their duties so that prosecutors, young prosecutors in my Office could step up to the challenge. 

Hon. Soalaoi:  Maybe this is the true last question.  I understand that we have trained a lot of lawyers and there must be a lot of lawyers around but what is the reason of not enough lawyers wanting to become prosecutors in the beginning, which resulted in us not having experienced local prosecutors to deal with complex cases that you mentioned in your statement?

Mr Talasasa:  That is a very important question.  The Foreign Relations Committee, I must say has been asking very relevant and very important questions to me. 
I will answer that question this way.  When I started in the office in 1991, there were only three lawyers.  I came first in January 1990 and did an attachment at the office, and that was how I develop the interest in working at the office.  When I came back at the end of 1990 and rejoined the office, there were only three lawyers - the DPP, his Deputy and myself.  Then the Deputy left but prior to that I was told that other lawyers were at the office but they left.  Some left after three days and others left after three months. 
When I joined in 1991 about three lawyers joined the office and they left between 1992 and 1999, only in a matter of five to seven years.  One who is the more experienced one after me was only there for five years because he joined after 2000.  The rest joined in last year and as you might have read in the Paper, this year three more were recruited and admitted yesterday. 
The reason for the lawyers working in the office and leaving after a short while varies, and it’s really a matter for them why they left.  But what I could gather from some of the discussions I had with a few of them is first, housing.  There is no house provided for young prosecutors and if one who is being challenged by that type of work that he is doing as a prosecutor lives with relatives in town, you would imagine the inconvenience he is having.  Secondly is an issue that is now ongoing and has been the reason for many lawyers leaving the Public Service, and I hope that this will be addressed next and is a concern is the salary level that which local prosecutors as well as other lawyers in government service are being paid.  This is a real problem.  
I have for the first time in the history of the Office of the DPP nine local prosecutors unprecedented, it has never been like that before.  How long will these lawyers stay in my office, is the question?  Will they remain in the office for the next five years so as to maintain the experience, to fully grasp the assistance that is now being accorded by the RAMSI advisors and be able to build upon it so that in the next five years and even beyond they will be the one to lead the office?  How long will they be there is the question that only depends on their own convenience.  This is a problem that has to be addressed.  
The salary level of the local prosecutors, the salary level of lawyers in government service is a challenge.  Only time will tell how long my staff will stay with me. 
I was able to stay that long for these few reasons.  First, my mother told me to remain in government service and so I stayed there.  Secondly, I am a Sunday school teacher and whether I am paid with peanuts my determination is to serve this country.  Whether I can only live on bread and butter, sometimes I leave the High Court and go back to the House for lunch, have a quick lunch and come back, my wife would come to me and asked ‘what are you having for lunch’ and whether she was impressed or surprised I was only able to have rice on loan.  One time I had rice with coconut for lunch.  It didn’t matter to me because as long as I had food to survive, that was all, but could not afford a balanced diet at times because of the salary.  I was only able to withstand the challenge because of what I have in my heart, and that is to serve this country whatever the cost. 
How long will my prosecutors be there, is the question.  To answer your question, Mr Chairman, it really is a matter that depends on the convenience of each prosecutor and each lawyer in the government service. 

Mr Chairman:  That’s it.  Thank you Ronald Talasasa, Director of Public Prosecutions for being here today and you are a special person.  Thank you for participating in our meeting.

Mr Talasasa:  Thank you Mr Chairman.

 

End of the session