Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback National Court of Papua New Guinea

Re Tribal Fighting in Wapenamanda and its Impact on the Work of the National Court and the Education of Children [2025] PGNC 463; N11615 (28 November 2025)

N11615

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]
HROI NO. 06 OF 2025

IN THE MATTER OF ENFORCEMENT OF BASIC RIGHTS
UNDER SECTION 57 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF
THE INDEPENDENT STATE OF PAPUA NEW GUINEA

RE: TRIBAL FIGHTING IN WAPENAMANDA
AND ITS IMPACT ON THE WORK OF THE NATIONAL COURT
AND THE EDUCATION OF CHILDREN

WABAG: ELLIS J
28 NOVEMBER 2025

HUMAN RIGHTS – Tribal fighting in Wapenamanda – status of Peace Agreement – involvement of Itokon tribe

Cases cited
No cases are cited in these reasons.

Counsel
R. Tamarua for The Hon Mikki Kaeok MP, Member for Wapenamanda Open
G. Bon for the Enga Provincial Government and D. Katie

REASONS

1. ELLIS J: The Court has today considered again the position in relation to tribal fighting in the Wapenamanda District within Enga Province. Additional evidence available today was an affidavit from Danny Katie (Exhibit 38), copies of letters sent by one of the mediators, namely Mr Kapao (Exhibit 39), a copy of the Peace Agreement signed on 21 November 2025 (Exhibit 40) and a copy of a letter from the other mediator, Chief Superintendent Tondop (Exhibit 41).
   
2. Again, there was no attendance by Hon Miki Kaeok. Earlier this week, two reasons were given for his inability to attend. The first was that the National Parliament was sitting and the second was that he had broken his arm. He was excused from attending today, provided he was represented. Sitting of the National Parliament were considered a sufficient reason to excuse him from attendance. As it is difficult to see how a broken arm prevents a person from walking, the second reason did not appear to be sufficient.
   
3. Signing a Peace Agreement between the Yangukun tribe and the Yakuman tribe on 21 November 2025 was a positive step but any delight at that outcome was short-lived as further fighting broke out in Wapenamanda the very next day.
   
4. The evidence before the Court suggests the involvement of the Itokon tribe. Mr Kaeok’s lawyer tried to suggest that the Itokon tribe was not covered by the Peace Agreement, but that submission must be rejected.
   
5. First, as Danny Katie pointed out, when called to give evidence today, the Itokon tribe is referred to in that Peace Agreement in that Article 9 names two sub-clans of that tribe.
   
6. Secondly, the unchallenged evidence of Dany Katie is that (1) Hon Miki Kaeok’s mother is from the Itokon tribe, (2) that he has influence with that tribe, (3) he is the unofficial leader of that tribe, and (4) the member of that tribe back him politically.
   
7. In those circumstances, it is first necessary for the Court to leave no room for doubt that the Itokon tribe is covered by the provisions of the Peace Agreement even if it could be said they are not bound by the Ceasefire Order made by this Court on 17 October 2025.
   
8. It is also necessary to make it clear that this matter does not either suspend or override the operation of the criminal law. Those who commit offences should be arrested, charged and brought before the courts so that the people of Wapenamanda realise that law and order should be maintained by the rule of law and not by using weapons, such as bush knives, axes or guns.
   
9. Further, it must be noted that the orders made today give the Police support in that they are entitled to arrest anyone who breaches the Peace Agreement, even if they have committed no crime, since any breach of that Peace Agreement may constitute contempt of court.
   
10. For the reasons set out above, the following orders are made:
    
    1. All members of the YANGUKUN tribe and the YAKUMAN tribe are bound by the terms of the Peace Agreement that was made on 21 November 2025.
       
    2. For the avoidance of doubt, all members of the ITOKON tribe are to comply with the terms of that Peace Agreement.
       
    3. Hon. Miki Kaeok MP is to take all reasonable steps to have the ITOKON tribe comply with the terms of that Peace Agreement.
       
    4. Without excluding the operation of the criminal law, any breach of the terms of that Peace Agreement by any member of the YANGUKUN tribe, the YAKUMAN tribe or the ITOKON tribe may constitute contempt of court, which conduct can be punished by a fine or imprisonment or both.
       

5. Time is abridged so that these orders may be entered forthwith.

Orders Accordingly.
__________________________________________________________________
Lawyers for the Hon Mikki Kaeok MP, Member for Wapenamanda Open: Minok Lawyers
Lawyers for the Enga Provincial Government and Danny Kattie: Gibson Bon Lawyers