Nauruan government alleges 'reprehensible' interference in Nauru 19 case

The Nauruan government has accused detractors of contempt of court, and media of allowing people to attempt to influence the long-running prosecution of a group of high-profile Nauruan protesters.

Last week the group of demonstrators known as the Nauru 19, which has included former MPs and presidents, were found guilty of charges including riot and assault in a controversial retrial overseen by former Fijian chief justice Daniel Fatiaki.

Fatiaki acquitted defendants of disturbing the parliament during the 2015 protests, which were sparked by the suspension of MPs who had spoken to international media, criticising the government for dismissing and deporting members of the judiciary.

The four-and-a-half year saga has drawn heavy criticism from human rights and legal groups, and at least four members fled Nauru and sought asylum in Australia and Fiji.

All remaining defendants have been held in remand and face sentencing next week.

In its statement, sent through a Brisbane-based PR firm, the Nauruan government said there had been “reprehensible attacks” on Nauru’s courts and judges, and that criticisms in media “smack of blatant racism” in suggesting only Australian judges could be “competent, independent and impartial”.

It suggested that if the criticisms made by “defendants, lawyers, a former judge and even an Australian politician” had aired in Australia or New Zealand there would “likely” be criminal charges or contempt proceedings against the speakers and the journalists involved.

It is understood the Australian politician referenced in the statement is independent MP Andrew Wilkie, who has called for the Australian government to make public interventions to have the matter overturned.

Prior to the conclusion of the trial, a spokesman for the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade told Guardian Australia it had “made representations to the government of Nauru on the importance of respect for the rule of law and an independent judiciary, including regarding the treatment of former members of parliament and other individuals charged in relation to protests in June 2015”.

Related: Nauru 19 found guilty of rioting and other charges in controversial retrial

In its statement on Friday, the Nauruan government said it understood the doctrine of the separation of powers and claimed it had remained silent “out of respect for the court process”.

“The Republic has always respected the decisions of the court and would have done so irrespective of the outcome,” the government said.

The first attempt at prosecuting the group failed in 2018 when the contracted judge, Geoffrey Muecke, ordered a permanent stay, after finding there to be no chance of a fair trial specifically because of the interventions of government.

Muecke concluded that the Nauruan government was “willing to expend whatever resources, including financial resources, as are required” to achieve their aim of seeing the group jailed.

Muecke found the government operated a blacklist against the group, as a matter of unwritten government policy, and that government members including the then justice minister, David Adeang, had repeatedly and inappropriately sought to influence the courts “to deal with these defendants in an adverse way”.

While one case was still under way, Adeang stood in parliament and declared there would be no plea bargaining or leniency, before alluding to the prospect of not renewing the employment contract of the Solomon Islands judge hearing the case, Emma Garo.

Muecke found the government’s conduct to be “a shameful affront to the rule of law”.

After he delivered his ruling, Muecke’s contract was terminated and for a time he was not paid for the work conducted.

Amid a series of significant changes to the Nauruan court system, which included tearing up a treaty with Australia to cut off access to its high court, the government created a new court of appeal that overturned Muecke’s stay and a retrial was ordered, overseen by Fatiaki.

During the retrial Fatiaki was accused of denying the defendants appropriate legal representation – a claim the Nauruan government denied – and of assisting the prosecutor during the trial.

He has also since been accused of misusing Nauruan bail laws to deny the defendants bail while they await sentencing.

Australian-based lawyer Stephen Lawrence, who previously represented the group and who has continued to assist them, said the Nauruan government “cannot act with impunity and expect to be free from criticism”.

Lawrence said it was “risible” to suggest he and others had committed contempt of court, and said they had only exposed “blatant unlawfulness in Nauru, disguised as it is through a sham judicial process”.

“Sub judice contempt of court powers are designed to protect the power of courts to uphold the rule of law,” he said. “When judges (and indeed members of the executive) act outside of the law they can scarcely expect the protections of sub judice, an aspect of the rule of law itself.”