'I don’t take orders from the chief justice': How Nauru ousted its judicial leaders

New details of the Nauru government’s harassment and summary dismissal of the country’s judiciary – after it had made decisions the government disagreed with – have been detailed before the country’s supreme court.

The dismissal of two Australian law officers in 2014 has been presented before the court in another case, involving three MPs expelled from parliament. The 2014 move was condemned internationally as a violation of the rule of law in Nauru.

The affidavits of Nauru’s former resident magistrate Peter Law and former chief justice Geoffrey Eames, both Australian citizens, were tendered as evidence in the Nauru supreme court this month.

Acting chief justice Mohammed Shafiullah Khan, having accepted the affidavits, later ordered they be expunged from the record and placed in a sealed envelope on the basis they were not relevant to a determination of the application for a stay by the three MPs.

Law was summarily sacked as chief magistrate of Nauru in January 2014 after Nauruan justice minister David Adeang issued a deportation notice against Australian citizen Rod Henshaw, who was living and running a business in Nauru.

Henshaw sought a stay on his deportation, and Law, as chief magistrate, granted a temporary injunction against the removal.

In his affidavit to the court, Law says he received a text message from the justice minister:

Law states: “I felt shocked by this message. I believe it was an attempt to influence me and I was left feeling very vulnerable.”

Ten days later, on a Sunday morning, police arrived at Law’s house with three letters: two terminating his contracts as a magistrate and registrar without reasons, and one removal order, declaring him to be a prohibited immigrant.

He was also given a plane ticket for that afternoon.

The Australian High Commissioner was aware of Law’s deportation, the affidavit states. Law telephoned and emailed the chief justice of Nauru, Geoffrey Eames QC, who was in Australia, seeking an injunction against his imminent deportation.

Eames issued an injunction blocking Law’s deportation, served to the commissioner of police, the justice minister, the president of Nauru, and to Nauru airlines, stating “breach of this order may constitute contempt of court”.

However, police forcibly put Law in a police car and took him to the airport, Law claims in his affidavit.

At Nauru airport, police were served with copies of the injunction to halt Law’s deportation. Law’s affidavit states an officer defied the injunction, saying: “I don’t take orders from the chief justice. I only take orders from the director [of police].”

Law was forced onto the plane and flown back to Australia. Many of his personal items were never returned to him.

In a separate affidavit, Eames detailed a phone conversation he had with Nauru’s president Baron Waqa, discussing Law’s deportation.

Eames said he told the president: “This decision comes after the minister of justice sent an improper message complaining about his decision and obviously intended to intimidate him into reversing his decision. This decision is being taken with no enquiry and no notice. The timing suggests that it is being taken after his decision in the Henshaw … case and the only conclusion is that it is a breach of the rule of law.

“The removal I see as being done for political reasons.”

Eames booked a flight back to Nauru to arrive the next morning. But hours before he was due to fly, the Nauruan government cancelled his visa and he was told he could not travel to the country where he was chief magistrate.

After two months of not being able to return to the country, Eames resigned.

The dismissals were condemned by the Australian government, the New Zealand government – which has since cut all funding to Nauru’s justice system because of concerns over civil rights and rule of law abuses – and by judicial organisations, including the Law Council of Australia, the Law Association for Asia and the Pacific, New Zealand Law Society and 11 individual chief justices across the Pacific.

“Removing judges from office, without any proper process whatsoever, breaches clear international standards on the independence of the judiciary. It also jeopardises the right of people in Nauru, especially those engaged in legal proceedings, to have a fair trial,” Sam Zarifi, regional director for the International Commission of Jurists said.

Requests by the Guardian to interview Adeang have not been granted. The Nauruan government has previously defended its treatment of judicial officers. “We consider these accusations an attack on our sovereignty,” Baron Waqa said in a statement. “The Nauru government – as an independent, democratic nation – has a right to appoint its judiciary and key personnel. Furthermore, we have a right to dismiss any person not fulfilling their duties in the best interests of Nauru.”

Eames’ and Law’s affidavits were tendered in evidence in a hearing this month for three Nauruan opposition MPs, who led a protest over their expulsion from parliament in 2014.

Lawyers for the three men are seeking to have their appeal on sentence case stayed while an application by their co-accused (who pleaded not guilty) is heard. The co-accused’s application argues they cannot get a fair trial in Nauru because the judiciary is compromised.

The three men were originally sentenced to between three and six months in prison for the protest, which damaged the parliament building and spilled onto Nauru’s neighbouring airfield.

The government appealed against that sentence, arguing it was too light, and the sentences were increased to between 14 and 22 months.

The magistrate who imposed the original sentences has also been dismissed.

Supporters of the three Nauruan MPs have appealed their sentences to Australia’s high court.