SBY should not chart out any format for dialoque without involving many Papuan leaders in Papua and West Papua.

For this purpose,I should define as to who are the West Papuan leaders that are needed to be involved in the dialoque. The leaders needed are West papuans academics from different professions (Law, politics and other academic fields, Religious leaders with higher academic qualifications, Administrators with higher academic qualifications, traditional/customary leaders, and other professional and community groupings. These people must be agrreed by the rest of the members of West papuan communities as their genuine representatives.

President SBY and his national government should show their genuiness in this search for format for dialoque and it quest for the genuine solution to the Political problems and issue in West Papua and Papua provinces by laying open all their cards.

They should not engage in dialoque with only one section of West Papuan leaders, They should not involve in propaganda that they have met with West papuan independence leaders or whatsoever leaders as we know Indonesian Government as well as its Military and/or armed forces of their long tradition of mainipulative discourse.

What Papuan people need now is open internationally mediated dialoque between Indonesian national government and the OPM who have long represented West papuan People’s Ideals for independence. This is the view and/or action that if taken should indicate the genuinness on the part of Indonesia to solve the political issue in papua.

If SBY and his government do not open up to take such approach or search that was even resolved and recommended by a meeting of papuan leaders and Indonesian officials a year or two ago led by Fr.Neles Tebay then its current search for format for dialoque or communications with papuan people can be deemed as another one of those old manipulative political discourses that is being employed by national government to eliminate Papuan peoples political aspirations for re-conducting referendum that should be conducted free of intimidation, internationally supervised and conducted according to the international system of voting practice.

For the record I would also like to apologise to Nick Chesterfield and his team if my comments were too harsh, offensive and too personal. I respect the work that you are doing and I commend it. Please do always keep in mind the responsibility you have to diseminate the truth, always.

I will release a full statement on how we went with the case as soon as it is completed.

God Bless you all and God Bless West Papua

Regards
William Tekwie
Wewak, PNG

The article alleges that the PNG Courts have denied the four Accused men basic justice. This is not true and the allegation is in my professional opinion ‘contempt of court’ for which the author of the article can be charged and convicted by law, irregardless of jurisdiction.

There is also a danger that if other people in PNG, read the article and happen to know the Policeman and officials who have been named in the article, Abraham Kareni and his family could be attacked. This is the unfortunate reality of the situation and there is no point in me pretending that there is no chance of this happening.

I understand that this Website and the people behind it are trying to do their best to disseminate information and that is commendable. However, we all have a responsibility to convey the truth and to up-hold it and as I have stated perhaps to harshly in some respects, journalists have a greater duty to up-hold this responsibility.

I have asked for Ronnie Kareni and Nick Chesterfield to apologise to me or to at least clear the misunderstanding that any reasonable person will have when they read the part of the article where I am accused of demanding a sum of K2, 000.00. The article does not make it clear that this money was for the bailout of the money and was payable to the Court not to me!

I do not expect any published apology to be made but Ronnie Kareni has apologised to me personally and I have asked him to also comment on this Forum to clear the air so to speak.

I conclude this statement by repeating my call to the journalists on this Forum to be more responsible and to give any persons mentioned in articles the opportunity to respond to allegations or to comment before publication.

William Tekwie
Wewak

According to Ronny, “3000 Kina has already been paid to the lawyer William Tekwie from Wagambie Lawyers, and he is demanding another 2000 kina as standby for bailout that might happen any day. But the court date has been adjourned to January 9, so my family cannot understand how they are going to get it. They are refugees, not businessmen”

This says very clearly that this money was demanded as standby for bailout, just as you have described in your legal threat above. It is not accusing you – it is simply a legitimate question and observation from ordinary people who do not have money to pay massive legal bills – the family of the men you are orepresenting. I would caution you to apply some linguistic comprehension before you go make threats of legal action on me.

According to the family, you did demand that the family prepare K2000 to be ready for the bailout. You did not give them an option, nor did you give them a reasonable amount of time to gather it. That is commonly understood in the English language to be a demand. It doesn’t matter if it wasn’t for your personal use, or for the legal costs, or if you were explaining the police/court process – it was still a demand, it was interpreted by the family as a demand, and that is the basis on which I fairly reported and quoted it.

I quoted directly what was given to me, as Ronny is the person paying the legal bills – his quote was relevant, checked as factual, and newsworthy. My reportage was fair, balanced and in the public interest. I did not editorialise, I quoted. Furthermore, I attempted to reach you for comment on the number above several times before publication, but there was no reply from either you or your office, and your clients conveyed to me that you would not be making comment. If you wish I can make this statement available: “Tekwie was unavailable for comment”.

I did not intend to defame you and I do not believe I have – this is a reportage of a factual observation by a direct witness and actor in the case, and these are the key points which fulfil all the journalistic criteria. Additionally, comment and reportage on legal costs involved and how it affects refugees living in poverty is in the PUBLIC INTEREST and it behoves you to keep that in mind.

I have all the source notes and records of interview still, and will continue to keep them. TO retract a factual quote and reportage when a lawyer or other person of privilege threatens a journalist is unethical, and it is a dangerous path for media independence.

You were not the target of this report – those identified criminal and corrupt actors in Customs, Police and their friends in Indonesian intelligence are.

This is also a civil case, not criminal defamation, so extradition is not applicable. The only reason it would be applicable is if you are acting for agents of a State – are you acting for any clients in the State of PNG?

West Papua Media is not based in any jurisdiction. Our internet hosts are in more than one country, our mirrors are spread across the internet, our journalists are in several countries, and our donors are in many more countries. We have no assets and we entirely volunteer run, and funded entirely by donations. We do not exist as an entity in any legal sense.

We have many friends in the Media Freedom world who will jump to our defence if you choose to take this further.

You have claimed that:

I’m sorry to say this but your story is full of speculation and incorrect information. Some of the matters you have raised are highly defamatory to say the least

This claim is in itself highly defamatory and speculative. IF you believe so, then please identify what exactly is defamatory, and how, and tell me what you intend to do about it. I stand by my research, that of my stringers, and my source material.

8. Contempt of Court Charges can only be laid after the trial process is underway, not retrospectively, and can only be initiated by a judge.

William, please get on with your job that your clients poor families have paid you for, and get these charges dismissed and stop trying to threaten a non-profit human rights media outlet that has been the only media outlet that has bothered to give this issue ANY coverage.

I hope you see some logic William and just get on with your job. These 3 men (you failed to mention Morris had escaped to Indonesia, and was possibly working for Indonesia all along), have had this sword of Damocles hanging over them for far too long.

Nick Chesterfield
Editor
West Papua Media