Former journalist Charlie Charters was not allowed to depart Fiji due to a flag raised in the border control system that identified him as a person of interest. This information was confirmed by Immigration Minister Viliame Naupoto following inquiries from The Fiji Times.
The incident occurred on February 21, when Charters was removed from Flight FJ915 after a primary line officer referred him to an immigration referral officer based on a departure alert. The immigration officer validated the alert, leading to consultation with Border Police and the Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption (FICAC), who confirmed Charters’ status as a person of interest. He was subsequently detained and transferred to Border Police.
Minister Naupoto provided insights into the border alert system, which activates upon the entry of a traveler’s details by a primary line officer. He specified that only select authorities are authorized to issue stop departure orders (SDOs), including courts and designated governmental entities. “Immigration can only stop a person at the border if the person’s travel documents are damaged or not in order,” he stated, affirming that officers operate within legal frameworks.
There was also a mention of whether FICAC formally issued a stop departure order for Charters, which Naupoto confirmed had been received by immigration authorities. As scrutiny mounts regarding Charters’ detention and his subsequent questioning at FICAC’s Suva office, the legal foundations and processes of the stop departure order are now under examination.
Charters’ legal representative, Seforan Fatiaki, noted that Charters was approached at the boarding gate but declined what he described as an alleged “deal” suggested by investigators. The situation has sparked broader discussions on the balance between law enforcement authority and constitutional protections—having been underscored by the High Court’s recent reaffirmation of the limitations on executive power and the necessity for the independence of statutory bodies.
As this case unfolds, it highlights crucial issues regarding governmental transparency and the rights of individuals, prompting important conversations within the community about the preservation of legal rights amidst enforcement actions.