DIRECTOR GENERAL OF HEALTH v WAKAMINENGA MAORI GOVERNMENT AND OTHERS
Johnstone J on 30 June 2023 delivered a judgement on CIV-2022-404-847 [2023] Director General of Health v Wakaminenga Maori Government (WMG) and Others. Unfortunately, the judgement was not delivered to WMG via the court registrar but was received via a third-party source. This meant that others who had no part in the case received the judgement before we did or before it was published. The judgement was eventually received some days after the 30 June, after WMG issued a complaint to the court. No apology was forthcoming, no responsibility taken for sharing with third parties and that according to their rules they were not in breach in sharing the information with others who had no connection to the case.
We will focus on WMG’s and leader of WMG Arikinui Ripekatangi’s involvement in the case. Other parties will no doubt provide their own view of it. The case centred around the issuance of practising certificates to health professionals. Under the independent and non-ceded sovereign jurisdiction of Te Wakaminenga o Te Rangatiratanga and He Wakaputanga 1835, WMG held that health practising certificates could be issued under this jurisdiction. In June 2022 Crown law for the NZ government Director General of Health claimed that this was not the case and that they would apply to the High Court for an injunction against WMG and Others. Various hearings were attended by the parties and in July 2022, Peters J issued an interim injunction against the “defendants” but made provision for the “defendants” to provide affidavits as to why the injunction should not stand.
In defending our right to issue the practising certificates WMG’s position held that Crown law for the Plaintiff Director General of Health (NZ Crown) would need to provide evidence that they held a jurisdiction over and above Te Wakaminenga o Te Rangatiratanga Congress (Maori Chiefs) of Nu Tireni NZ and He Wakaputanga. Five more hearings followed. In that period WMG issued affidavits providing historical and contemporary proof that Te Wakaminenga o Te Rangatiratanga Congress (Maori Chiefs) and He Wakaputanga 1835 was a higher unceded jurisdiction and not subordinate to NZ parliamentary legislation.
This remained our position throughout all hearings that were finally concluded on 30 March 2023. Affidavits remain unrebutted to date. An unrebutted affidavit stands as truth in law.
The judgement of Johnstone J ignored WMG’s claim to a higher jurisdiction of He Wakaputanga and Te Wakaminenga o te Rangatiratanga and the Waitangi Tribunal decision that “the Chiefs never ceded sovereignty and neither were they or their people bound by law that was not enacted by the Chiefs…” Te Paparahi o Te Raki (Northland) | Waitangi Tribunal 2014 and 2022. Of note in paragraph (49) of the judgement it states:
“In short, and to the extent the defendants assert that the signatories of He Wakaputanga (the Declaration of Independence of 1835) did not cede, and their descendants have not ceded, legislative authority, whether that is correct or not is beside the point: Parliament has acquired it. The two streams have now merged.”
Our question is how the NZ parliament acquired their sovereignty. As we have demonstrated many times the NZ parliament holds abrogated or assumed sovereignty. It is clear that they are in breach of He Wakaputanga and the Sovereignty of Te Wakaminenga o Te Rangatiratanga (the Chiefs) as per the Waitangi Tribunal reports of 2014 and 2022.
The Wakaminenga Maori Government does not accept the judge’s decision but does not plan to appeal it either. We stand by our view that the NZ Crown has abrogated authority or unlawful authority that ignores the pre-eminent sovereignty of Te Wakaminenga o Te Rangatiratanga of the Chiefs as expressed in article 2 of He Wakaputanga.
He Wakaputanga and tikanga customary law takes precedence over all Crown law. WMG is clear that the NZ Crown will never admit to not having sovereign authority. On the other hand, Wakaminenga Maori Government will not hesitate to exercise our sovereign rights while the NZ Crown unlawfully claims sovereignty.
The case has not yet been published pending replies from parties to the judgement.