Madam President of the National Parliament
Distinct members,
People of Timor-Leste,
The FRETILIN party in this parliament has raised many times, and will continue to raise again as many times as is necessary, what has become the “Big Scandal” in which the de facto Prime Minister himself has been implicated regarding the illegal release of Maternus Bere, who was in custody in Becora Prison awaiting trial pursuant to a court order.
The Laksaur militia leader Maternus Bere who was accused of crimes against humanity as co-accused of the massacre at the Suai Church in 1999. The leader and member of the militia group was indicted by the Dili District Court Serious Crimes Panel and a warrant issued for his arrest in 2003. He was arrested in Suai by the police pursuant to this arrest warrant, subsequently being remanded into custody by the Judge of the Suai court whilst awaiting trial.
But, as we all know, according to statements made by the Prime Minister himself to the press, that on the 30th of August 2009, that he himself in the name of the de facto government, decided to order the release of Maternus Bere from Becora prison. The President of the Court of Appeal and the Superior Council for the Judiciary himself has stated in a communiqué confirmed to us all that no court order was ever issued for the release Maternus Bere.
Madam President
Distinct Members,
As a political party in this country we are conscious and want to, as you all are too, to promote the primacy of the national interest, over and above group interests or political interests. Many people have spoken a great deal of late of the “national interest”, but some have interpreted “national interest” as being something very subjective, according to their own objectives, placing the “national interest” as being in the interests of one or two people only, a single group’s or party’s own interests, as if these were in truth the “national interest”.
The Maternus Bere case is one that is inextricably linked to justice for all the crimes committed in the past, from 1974 to 1999. Article 160 of our Constitution states very clearly that crimes, such as crimes those against humanity, genocide and crimes of war, committed during that period have to be tried criminally in national and or international courts. It is within this context of administering or not justice, that the freeing of Maternus Bere, has to be seen, and whether there is in fact political will by the branches of our state to abide by the constitution or grant amnesties for crimes committed between 1974 to 1999.
His Excellency the President of the Republic has spoken many times during meetings with the leaders of our national political parties and parliamentary groups of his ideas for a draft law to grant amnesties that would close the 1974 to 1999 chapter of our history. Because amnesties are within the exclusive legislative powers of the National Parliament, it is the National Parliament that must take the initiative to draft such a law, to give continuation to this initiative from the President of the Republic.
As we have said many times, the FRETILIN parliamentary group has not closed the doors to the President’s initiative, and because it is an issue of national importance to our state, the FRETILIN group in parliament is ready to discuss the issue in order to find national consensus, when the majority in parliament takes the initiative to proceed with this debate. The FRETILIN parliamentary group has demanded many times that the CAVR and TFC reports be debated as the starting point to move this process forward, but this is yet to happen because the AMP group in parliament does not want to give priority to debating these reports.
The Government and its AMP group does not want to use its majority in parliament to take the initiative and present a draft amnesty law for discussion. This shows clearly that it is the AMP that lacks the political will and seriousness to address this issue as being in the national interest. Then, as we have recently seen when there is a strong reaction to the Government’s breach of the constitution and the criminal code because they released Maternus Bere without a court order, they try to justify it by saying it was a political decision or a decision of the state and that it was in the national interest. Trying to justify it thus, they want to force everyone else to accept their decision despite it being illegal and unconstitutional, denigrating our national sovereignty and shaming the whole state in
the process.
If this was a decision in the national interest, then, why do it clandestinely and without legal or other formal proceedings? Why did the Prime Minister himself, as he has publicly admitted, order the release of Bere and not the President of the Republic? Why was he released right on the 30th of August 2009, why could it not have waited for a court order? So, was then this decision made in the national interest, or in the AMP’s interests? The people all know that it was in fact the AMP’s interests.
The Minister for Foreign Affairs continues to try to defend this decision on the basis that the government freed him in order that he be deported or extradited to Indonesia. Maybe they are just trying to pass the “hot potato” onto Indonesia, but there has never been an agreement for this effect prior to his release, and until this day no agreement has been entered into. We all already know that Indonesia will not easily enter into a formal agreement regarding this case.
Madam President,
Justice for past crimes, especially those from 1974 and 1999, are a question of national importance and deserve our utmost attention.
However, what really concerns FRETILIN now, is the illegal and unconstitutional release of Maternus Bere, the breach of those laws and constitution of Timor-Leste that bind us all. If Indonesia pressured Timor-Leste, it was because they were defending their interests, including force us to forget the crimes committed against our people, by their generals, their militias and others.
But, why was it that Hasan Wirayuda did not free Maternus Bere himself? Or why did they not send their military forces to open the Becora prison gates to free this militia?
Because, more than Timor-Leste it seems, as an independent and sovereign state, they have their own sovereignty and their own laws that they abide by. They respect Timor-Leste’s internal affairs, and because they respect the fact that pursuant to international law, states should not interfere in one another’s internal affairs.
The Constitution of the Republic states that as a state the RDTL is a state under the rule of law, democratic and sovereign, with separation of powers between constitutional bodies of state, that is the legislature, executive, presidency and judiciary branches. The judiciary administers justice in the name of the people, and they are guaranteed total independence without interference from anyone or any other institution of state, administering justice according only to the laws and the constitution.
The constitution of the Republic also states that the state of Timor-Leste is subordinate to the constitution and the law, and each body of state exercises only the powers and functions attributed to it by the constitution. It follows that only those acts that are within a constitutional bodies’ powers as stated in the constitution are valid.
This is what comprises the state of the Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste, represented by the four constitutional bodies of state, and though separate, they are also inter-dependent. Though the President of the Republic can for example grant pardons or commute sentences of persons, it is only after he or she has been convicted after a judicial process, and he does so through a Presidential Decree. However, only the National Parliament acting a collective body can grant amnesties to persons through either a resolution or an amnesty law.
Indonesia has shown many times since 2002 that it respects our sovereignty, respects our justice system, but it seems that what we have now seen is that it is some of our political leaders who are set on denigrating our national sovereignty, weakening our justice system and breaking our own laws, with irrational purport. Is this what is in the national interest!
It certainly is not! If it was the President who in fact decided on this prisoner’s release, then where are his constitutional powers to do so? What is the number of the pertinent Presidential Decree? Which article of the decree? If it was the government that so decided, where in the constitution are its powers to do so? Which article of the constitution permits it to do so?
However, the answers to these questions are irrelevant now, because His Excellency the Prime Minister himself has stated publicly and it was reported in the media that it was he who ordered the release of the prisoner Maternus Bere from prison without a judicial order or process, and that he himself is prepared to accept the responsibility for it. This is the critical point, as it is more than clear that the actions of the Prime Minister in ordering the release are illegal as it breaches 245 of the Criminal Code, unconstitutional and especially because he has publicly confessed to the commission of that crime in breach of the Criminal Code.
Madam President,
Illustrious Members,
Our state is seated on the constitution and the laws, and that is why it is said to be a state under the rule of law. We all come to sit in this parliament because the constitution establishes the path for us to do so and empowers us to enact laws that every citizen must to obey. So does the government.
How is it then when we ourselves are then able to negate the constitution and the law as has recently happened, where the government puts itself above the law and jumps over the constitution? It is this that is creating a great deal of unease, just as it has caused grave concern for us FRETILIN as the opposition: where is this state being taken? All citizens have a constitutional duty to demand to know who is responsible for and to demand political responsibility from, as well as criminal responsibility, the government’s decision to order the unlawful release of Bere.
It is in this context that we the FRETILIN members of this parliament, together with KOTA have tabled a censure motion demanding the AMP government accept political responsibility for their actions.
Pursuant to Article 107 of the Constitution, the government, as a political organ led by the Prime Minister, has to come to the national parliament as the people’s elected representatives to account for their actions.
The Censure Motion is a constitutional means for us to demand responsibility from the government. This is normal in any democracy in the world. This Censure Motion is a means for us to attempt to restore the sovereignty of this state, to dignify the rule of law, to strengthen our peoples’ confidence in the law and the justice system in Timor-Leste.
Members opposite from the AMP should not be uneasy with what we have tabled. The stability of the AMP alliance is in your hands. FRETILIN will not be mobilizing anyone to demonstrate or to be violent, we will not be organizing petitioners, but there are no longer any petitioners anyway, we will not be aiding and abetting the rebel major Alfredo Reinado to intimidate people with firearms, as he is already dead anyway; all the things you did to us including invent false allegations to bring down the FRETILIN government in 2006.
We know one other, and we know who has fomented instability in the past and who has contributed to democracy and peace in this country. A gentleman by the name of Rui Lopes has started to open his mouth in court to tell the truth.
FRETILIN is very aware that the AMP government will not fall because of this motion, because you members opposite will vote against our Censure Motion. That is your right. But when you exercise that right, FRETILIN will also then have a right to ensure the people of Timor-Leste know, the international community and everyone else know, that the roots of AMP’s dictatorship are entrenched in Timor-Leste in a way worse than even the Suharto regime ever was, because the AMP does not obey the constitution or the laws of the land, because they have dismantled the rule of law, they want to rule with force, with intimidation, with violence, as they did before they took power inthis country.
Thank you.
Aniceto Guterres
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário