Articles

• Papua New Guinea’s (PNG) Constitutional Protections 

Papua New Guinea’s (PNG) constitution formally guarantees civil liberties. Freedom of expression (Section 46) is broadly protected, as it guarantees that every person may hold opinions, receive and impart ideas, and publish information. Additionally, Freedom of Assembly and Association (Section 47) likewise grants every person the right to peacefully gather and join groups (McGrath, 2020). In theory, these constitutional rights provide strong safeguards. In practice, however, legal loopholes and new statutes since 2020 have undermined these liberties.

The Peace and Good Order Act 1991 requires protest organisers to obtain a police-approved permit for any public assembly. Authorities can deny permits on vague grounds of ‘peace and public order’, effectively turning a constitutional right into a privilege. This onerous authorisation regime violates international standards, which call for simple notification rather than advance permission for assemblies (Civicus Monitor, 2024c). The result is a chilling effect on protests, with spontaneous demonstrations deemed unlawful and easily banned by officials.

• Digital Repression: Cybercrime and Criminal Defamation

PNG’s new cybercrime and defamation laws have become an instrument for suppressing dissent. PNG’s Cybercrime Act 2016, implemented with renewed vigour in recent years, criminalises online expression and has been wielded against activists and journalists. Section 21 of the law  defines cyber libel as an offence punishable by staggering penalties, fines up to one million kina, and imprisonment from 15 to 25 years (Asia Pacific Report, 2024). Although defamation in PNG was historically a civil matter, the Cybercrime Act introduced heavy criminal liability for digital speech, a move criticised by opposition and civil society for stifling legitimate criticism (Civicus Monitor, 2024).

In August 2024, the Supreme Court upheld this law, deeming criminal defamation ‘necessary’ for public order despite its noticeable impact on free speech. Nevertheless, from 2020 onward, PNG authorities have used the cybercrime law’s broad reach. Dozens of charges have been brought against individuals for Facebook posts and online commentary deemed defamatory or ‘offensive’ to those in power. For example, a former public servant was charged in 2020 after alleging a Minister’s corrupt land deal on social media (Davidson & Reuters, 2020). Tools meant for cybersecurity in this case are manipulated to criminalise activism. 

• Enforcement Through Security Forces

Repression in PNG operates through multiple, often intersecting, channels. State security forces remain the primary enforcers of crackdowns. Police and occasionally military units have used surveillance, intimidation, and force to contain activists. Recent civic monitoring finds harassment and threats against human rights defenders commonplace (Civicus Monitor, 2024c). Activists report being trailed by plainclothes officers and having their communications monitored, creating an atmosphere of constant watchfulness. 

Authorities also resort to arbitrary detention and prosecutions to quash critics. In late 2024, police arrested environmental advocate Eddie Tanago of NGO ACT NOW! for allegedly ‘defaming’ the Forest Authority via Facebook (Civicus Monitor, 2024a). He was hauled into a Port Moresby cell and threatened with 15 years in prison under the Cybercrime Act. Although released on bail, Tanago’s case exemplifies how legal persecution is used to wear down activists.

• Corporate Collusion and SLAPP Lawsuits

Corporate actors in extractive industries are another powerful agents in the repression of the people in PNG. Foreign-owned logging and mining companies have been known to collude with officials or hire private security to silence opposition. A notable tactic is using strategic litigation against public participation (SLAPP) lawsuits to bury activists in legal challenges.  In 2024, a Malaysian logging firm (Giant Kingdom) repeatedly sued ACT NOW! after the NGO exposed illegal logging practices; courts dismissed these attempts as baseless, even ordering the company to pay the NGO’s costs (Civicus Monitor, 2024a). Yet, the very process of defending against defamation claims drains activist resources and intimidates others from acting. 

When local communities in Porgera and other resource-rich areas protest mining pollution or unpaid royalties, companies often rely on police deployments to disperse villagers. For instance, during the years-long closure of the Porgera gold mine, community leaders who organised demonstrations for compensation faced police intimidation and occasional violence (Morse, 2023). In July 2024, police in Port Moresby arrested six settlers protesting a mass eviction by a national superannuation company. The protesters were charged with unlawful assembly and even with insulting the national flag after they burned a PNG flag in desperation (Civicus Monitor, 2024b). This case illustrates how corporate interests (in this case, a state-linked developer) work hand in hand with law enforcement to criminalise grassroots resistance.

• Traditional Power Structure Influence

Repression is also enabled or tolerated by local power structures and customary leaders. In PNG’s communal society, village chiefs, clan elders, and even church pastors hold significant sway. These figures may not operate formal ‘censorship’ machinery, but they can socially sanction and silence activists, especially those from minority groups. For example, a woman advocating for victims of sorcery-related violence in the Highlands might be ostracised or threatened by local leaders who view her work as disruptive to tradition. There are instances of local political supporters directly menacing journalists and activists. In one case, supporters of an MP physically harassed a female reporter outside a courthouse, seizing her phone and warning her to stop reporting on their leader’s corruption case (Civicus Monitor, 2024c). Such intimidation by non-state actors often occurs with impunity.

• Marginalisation of Vulnerable Communities

The brunt of PNG’s repressive climate is often borne by those already at society’s margins. Ethnic and linguistic minority communities, Indigenous landowners in remote areas, women in rural patriarchal settings, and LGBTQIA+ individuals all face unique vulnerabilities when they raise their voices. In regions such as Hela and Southern Highlands, home to tribal communities and lucrative oil, gas, and mineral projects, local activists are frequently caught between corporate-backed security forces and local power brokers (Esterman, 2018). Indigenous land defenders attempting to oppose resource exploitation or demand fair benefits have been met with armed police raids and internal exile. In Porgera (Enga Province), for example, an Indigenous grassroots group, the Akali Tange Association, has long fought for justice for victims of killings and sexual violence linked to mining (RNZ, 2017). They continue their protests despite ongoing threats. 

• Targeting of LGBTQIA+ Individuals and Women In Rural Areas

LGBTQIA+ Papua New Guineans arguably face the most severe repression of all minority groups, as their very identity is criminalised. Same-sex relations between men are illegal under PNG’s colonial-era laws, with penalties of up to 14 years’ imprisonment (Human Rights Watch, 2024). While prosecutions are rare, the law serves as a powerful tool of intimidation and extortion by police and employers, who have harassed and blackmailed LGBTQIA+ individuals under threat of sodomy charges (Civicus Monitor, 2024c; Human Rights Watch, 2024). In this environment, open activism for LGBTQIA+ rights is virtually non-existent, and community members exercise extreme self-censorship, if not total silence. Those who have attempted to organise (even informally) report being shunned by their families or monitored by authorities. Government leaders have openly stated they will not consider decriminalisation; Prime Minister Marape in 2023 dismissed any talk of LGBT law reform and framed the existing ban as reflective of PNG’s ‘values’ (Human Rights Watch, 2024).

This stance is backed by the church and effectively suffocates LGBTQIA+ voices, forcing the community to seek support through underground networks or  anonymous online forums. Similarly, women in rural and conservative areas who speak up, whether about gender-based violence, witch-hunt killings, or inequalities, often face retribution. Rural women human rights defenders have been publicly shamed, accused of betraying custom, or even forced to flee  their villages for challenging male authority. Notably, women leading protests – whether against resource projects or in defence of women’s rights – face heightened risks of gender-based violence. 

• Conclusion

Despite a constitutional framework that claims to protect civil liberties, PNG exhibits a pattern of repression that cuts across legal, digital, social, and corporate domains. Vulnerable communities, especially Indigenous peoples, women, and LGBTQIA+ individuals, are subject to intersecting layers of marginalisation. The state’s tolerance or facilitation of harassment by various state and non-state actors reveals a civic space under siege. Activism in PNG, while resilient, remains heavily penalised.

Bibliography

Asia Pacific Report. (2024, August 6). Landmark PNG Supreme Court ruling toughens cybercrime law | Evening Report. Eveningreport.nz. https://eveningreport.nz/2024/08/06/landmark-png-supreme-court-ruling-toughens-cybercrime-law/ 

Civicus Monitor. (2024a). Papua New Guinea: Cybercrime law used to criminalise expression as government proceeds with restrictive media policy. Civicus Monitor. https://monitor.civicus.org/explore/papua-new-guinea-cybercrime-law-used-to-criminalise-expression-as-government-proceeds-with-restrictive-media-policy/ 

Civicus Monitor. (2024b). Papua New Guinea: Media restrictions and cybercrime law undermine freedom of expression. Civicus Monitor. https://monitor.civicus.org/explore/papua-new-guinea-media-restrictions-and-cybercrime-law-undermine-freedom-of-expression/ 

Civicus Monitor. (2024c). Papua New Guinea: Slow progress on reforms to protect civic space. https://civicusmonitor.contentfiles.net/media/documents/PapuaNewGuinea.ResearchBrief.April2024.pdf  

Davidson, H., & Reuters. (2020, May 23). Papua New Guinea police arrest former PM Peter O’Neill over alleged corruption. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/24/papua-new-guinea-police-arrest-former-pm-peter-oneill-over-alleged-corruption

Esterman, I. (2018, June 26). Papua New Guinea landowners take up arms against natural gas project. Mongabay Environmental News. https://news.mongabay.com/2018/06/papua-new-guinea-landowners-take-up-arms-against-natural-gas-project/?utm_source 

Human Rights Watch. (2024, January 11). Papua New Guinea: Events of 2023. Human Rights Watch. https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2024/country-chapters/papua-new-guinea

McGrath, C. (2020, September 10). 19 distinct human rights identified under PNG Constitution. Higgins. https://www.higginschambers.com.au/png-human-rights/

Morse, I. (2023, May 1). Gold miner faces global protests as it rekindles a mine with a violent legacy. Mongabay Environmental News. https://news.mongabay.com/2023/05/gold-miner-faces-global-protests-as-it-rekindles-a-mine-with-a-violent-legacy/ 

RNZ. (2017, March 27). PNG police squads accused of burning 150 houses. Business & Human Rights Resource Centre. https://www.rnz.co.nz/international/pacific-news/327579/png-police-squads-accused-of-burning-150-houses