Former journalist Charlie Charters encountered unexpected obstacles while trying to leave Fiji, as confirmed by Immigration Minister Viliame Naupoto. On February 21, an alert within the border control system flagged Charters as a person of interest (POI), leading to his removal from Flight FJ915.
In his statement to The Fiji Times, Minister Naupoto described the events that unfolded, stating that a primary line officer at the airport referred Charters to an immigration referral officer due to the alert. Upon investigation, immigration officials confirmed this alert and conferred with Border Police and the Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption (FICAC), which indicated that Charters was indeed a POI. Consequently, Charters was offloaded from the flight and handed over to Border Police for further action.
Naupoto elaborated that the alert system is only activated when a traveler’s details are logged by an officer during their exit or entry. He clarified that only specific authorities, including courts and designated government bodies, are allowed to issue stop departure orders (SDOs). He emphasized that immigration personnel are restricted to acting within legal guidelines, specifically stating, “Immigration can only stop a person at the border if the person’s travel documents are damaged or not in order.”
On the matter of whether a formal SDO had been issued to Charters by FICAC, Naupoto confirmed that immigration officials were made aware of such an order but could not provide further details regarding its issuance.
The case surrounding Charters has ignited public discourse regarding the delicate relationship between law enforcement’s authority and constitutional rights. Recently, the High Court reaffirmed the boundaries of executive power and the autonomy of statutory organizations, adding another layer of complexity to the situation.
Charters, through his legal counsel, Mr. Seforan Fatiaki, reported that he was approached at the boarding gate and declined what was termed an “alleged deal” from investigators before being escorted to FICAC’s office in Suva for questioning.
As the legal and procedural implications of the stop departure order come under scrutiny, public interest in this case remains high, prompting discussions about the necessary balance between law enforcement actions and individual rights.
Leave a comment