Former journalist Charlie Charters was barred from leaving Fiji due to a flag raised in the border control system that deemed him a person of interest. This development was confirmed by Immigration Minister Viliame Naupoto in response to inquiries from The Fiji Times.
Charters’ ordeal began on February 21 when he was removed from Flight FJ915 after a primary line officer alerted an immigration referral officer based on a departure alert. This alert was validated by the immigration officer, which prompted consultations with Border Police and the Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption (FICAC). Following this, Charters was detained and handed over to Border Police.
Minister Naupoto explained the mechanics of the border alert system, noting how it activates when a traveler’s details are entered by a primary line officer. He emphasized that only specific authorities, including courts and designated government entities, have the power to issue stop departure orders (SDOs). “Immigration can only stop a person at the border if the person’s travel documents are damaged or not in order,” he affirmed, highlighting the legal compliance required by officers.
Speculation arose regarding whether FICAC officially issued a stop departure order for Charters, which Naupoto confirmed had indeed been communicated to immigration authorities. Meanwhile, as the scrutiny surrounding Charters’ detention grows, questions about the legal foundations and processes of stop departure orders are coming to the forefront.
Charters’ legal representative, Seforan Fatiaki, disclosed that Charters was approached at the boarding gate with what he described as an alleged “deal” proposed by investigators, which Charters declined. This incident opens up a larger dialogue about the balance between law enforcement power and constitutional rights, highlighted by the High Court’s recent reaffirmation of limitations on executive authority and the importance of maintaining the independence of statutory bodies.
This case not only spotlights the legal processes involved but also raises significant concerns regarding governmental transparency and individual rights. It has initiated critical discussions within the community about safeguarding legal protections in the face of enforcement actions, reflecting a growing awareness and advocacy for civil liberties.