Part III: The Death Penalty in Papua New Guinea: Papua New Guinea Repeals the Death Penalty

On 20 January 2022, Papua New Guinea’s (PNG) Parliament adopted the Criminal Code (Amendment) Act which replaced the death penalty with life imprisonment.​

Part I of this series of posts on PNG noted the July 2021 Supreme Court decision in the case of Tamate, affirming the constitutionality of the capital judicial process, but since this time political discussions have identified the unworkability and inappropriateness of the punishment.

Prime Minister James Marape and Justice Minister Bryan Kramer acknowledged that there is no proven deterrent effect of capital punishment, and following the National Executive Council’s recommendation that three possible execution methods could be implemented, the government stated that it was unable to guarantee implementation consistent with the Constitution. This was due to a lack of a clear execution protocol and appropriate apparatuses and technologies for: a) firing squad, b) lethal injection and c) hanging. A further reason was a religious perspective in that the lex talionic of an ‘eye for an eye’ was considered by the government to be inconsistent with Christian values.

The decision to end the death penalty has been widely commended both domestically and internationally. During the PNG Parliament’s debate on the repeal, all MPs who provided statements expressed their opposition to the death penalty, and the National President of the opposition Peoples’ Progress Party, Sumasy Singin, stated that the “death penalty was a draconian and primitive law that has not proven to be a deterrent to serious crimes.”

The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Michelle Bachelet, recognised that “Papua New Guinea joins a global trend away from the use of the death penalty”, while Peter Stano, the Lead Spokesperson for the European Union’s Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, commented that PNG’s decision “is a further step towards the universal abolition of the death penalty.” A group of experts, the Capital Punishment Justice Project, Eleos Justice and the Anti-Death Penalty Asia Network, also provided a Joint Statement stating that this was “a significant victory for human rights in the Asia Pacific region.”  

The final step: strengthening the international commitment

Due to the prevailing high crime rates in PNG, it is still possible that a subsequent government with differing political views might make a volte-face and reintroduce capital punishment. This previously occurred in 1991, although there were no resultant executions. Of course, in the future the same arguments could be raised concerning the ineffectiveness, inhumanity and false-retributive qualities of the death penalty. Misleading propositions from the retentionist viewpoint, however, could again lead to an executive and Parliament that is ill-informed as regards the consequential violence and brutalisation of society which arises through capital punishment.

PNG’s position could be strengthened through further adoption of the international instruments and the government’s contribution to the multilateral initiatives promoting a world free of the death penalty. In 2008, PNG ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), Article 6(6) of which states “[n]othing in this article shall be invoked to delay or to prevent the abolition of capital punishment by any State Party to the present Covenant.”

20 January 2022 was the date that PNG no longer ‘delayed’ in implementing abolition. The Covenant’s time-reflexive accommodation for this state decision needs now to be galvanized with the ratification of the Second Optional Protocol to the ICCPR aiming at the abolition of the death penalty. Article 1 of the Protocol provides for state abolition and the Preamble text explains that ratifying states join the “international commitment to abolish the death penalty.”

As Part II of this series noted, during the previous three cycles of PNG‘s Universal Periodic Review, reviewing states consistently made recommendations to undertake an incremental process towards abolition through the government:

a) adopting an official moratorium and initiate domestic discussions for potential abolition;

b) implementing de jure abolition (national legal amendment); and then,

c) ratifying the Second Optional Protocol to the ICCPR.

By repealing the death penalty, PNG has fulfilled a) and b), but not c). This should now be the policy focus of the government, so that domestic abolition is placed within the context of international obligation and oversight. Then when PNG ratifies the Protocol, it could support the biennial vote on the UN General Assembly resolution ‘Moratorium on the use of the death penalty’, and refuse to sign the Joint Permanent Missions’ note verbale objecting to the resolution. In turn, these actions would help PNG fulfil Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) No. 16 which provides for “access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels.” The abolition of the death penalty is consistent with this SDG.

To further help improve human rights in PNG, the country should create a national human rights institution, which could advise the government on human rights. PNG could then engage with the Asia Pacific Forum of National Human Rights Institutions in their work for the complete abolition of the death penalty in the region. With abolition in PNG, Tonga is left as the final island state in the Asia Pacific region to retain the capital sanction.

Following abolition, it is now an opportune time for PNG to positively engage with the UN and the Asia Pacific region to help promote a world free of the death penalty.

Jon Yorke is Professor of Human Rights and the Director of the BCU Centre for Human Rights at Birmingham City University. He is a member of the UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office’s Pro-Bono Lawyers Panel, in which he advises the British Government on death penalty matters and he has drafted amicus curie briefs for the UK Government’s submissions in US courts. His recent work focuses upon submitting on the death penalty as a violation of international law in Stakeholder Reports to the Universal Periodic Review.