TOWARDS ACCOUNTABILITY COVID 19 VACCINATION

From the Office of Acting Prosecutor, Te Kooti Wakanga nui, Hou Hunga Rongo, Supreme Court of Restorative Justice, Nu Tireni New Zealand

The International Military Tribunal conducted at Nuremberg after WWII has been brought into the news recently by several events.  Firstly, Russell Crowe as Hermann Göring stars in the film “Nuremberg” which gives the Hollywood treatment to prosecution of 22 high ranking Nazis after WWII. 

Secondly, Sergei Stepashin Chair of the Association of Lawyers in Russia recently raised the issue of “Nuremberg style tribunals” being considered by the Russian Bar Association, the Investigative Committee and the Prosecutor’s Officer for alleged crimes committed by the Ukrainian regime during the incursion into the Kursk region. 

Finally, German lawyer Reiner Fuellmich and the Corona Investigative Committee had called for ‘COVID crimes’ to be subject to Nuremberg 2:0.

The Wakaminenga Maori Government (WMG) has already acted to investigate the actions of the NZ Crown Government during the public health response to COVID-19. Firstly, through the Coronavirus Action Group and subsequently, when Te Kooti Wakanga conducted prosecutions of breaches of Tikanga.

Given the ongoing release of information associated with the alleged harms associated with the mRNA jabs that were consistently promoted as ‘safe and effective’ the WMG has been considering what further actions were needed.  The Nuremberg Tribunals provide a model of how this could proceed. 

During the second world war the Nazi forces were known to be committing what are generally regarded as crimes against humanity and war crimes such as the persecution of the Jewish population in occupied territories and the brutality against prisoners of war.  From the Moscow Conference of 1943 onwards the allies demonstrated their intent to fight the war to a decisive conclusion and then prosecute the Nazi regime in trials. 

But how to organize such trials?  

No overarching legal system existed since the 4 major Allies had differences between their jurisdictions.  There was the common law for the US and UK, with among other things the principle of the presumption of innocence and the continental system based on Rome for France and based on Byzantium for the USSR where there was a presumption of guilt. 

Another obstacle was the concept that no sovereign nation could be subjected to the laws of others, there being no international higher authority than a sovereign government.  Thus, the decision by a legitimate government to do something such as engage in wars of aggression could not be subject to international prosecution.  Indeed, after WWI the Americans had argued against war crime trials since no statute was in place before the war to make actions taken during it a crime.

These problems were resolved at the London Conference in 1944 after which a charter to establish the Tribunal and its frame of reference was signed by the 4 major powers and supported by other countries including New Zealand.

There was a distinction made between wars fought in defense and those carried out as acts of aggression. Within the definition were the ideas of individual liability without the immunity of acting on the orders of another and to consider it a crime to prepare, plan and execute a war of aggression as part of a conspiracy in which there was individual and joint responsibility and therefore liability.  The reasoning was that the individual and group acts that were atrocities and therefore war crimes could only be committed in a state of war and were thus a direct result of the conspiracy to engage in war.

In determining whether there were crimes committed during the public health response to COVID-19 it is argued that the concerted efforts to promote the uptake of mRNA jabs as something that was ‘safe and effective” and necessary constituted a mass act of aggression by governments, including that of the NZ Crown, against civilian populations and should, therefore be subject to trial.

The WMG have consistently argued that the NZ Crown government has no lawful right to act as a legislative authority since this contravenes He Wakaputanga in that the various members and agents have not received the permission of Te Wakaminenga.  Furthermore, in the direct issue of the public health response to COVID-19 they were expressly forbidden to promote vaccination especially with the Pfizer mRNA jab which MedSafe had at first issued a refusal for use given the inadequate information provided in the application to justify overcoming hope that it might be safe but insufficient data existed to make that more than a hope.

It is important that any future actions are completed with impeccable and irrefutable evidence that is robust enough from the perspective of sound scientific analysis, and the WMG has supported international scientific groups who have worked over the last five years to complete such analysis.

Also, the process followed in any trial must be recognizable as sound.  This is where the example of the Nuremberg Tribunals provides a model.  If the WMG acting with other Indigenous Nations can demonstrate that the reason why the impeccable evidence has not been considered in official legal systems is they are forestalling such examination in order to protect governments from their people not the people from the mistakes of their governments, then sufficient weight of numbers will be convinced to enforce any decisions of a Tribunal, especially one that is international.

To this end, the WMG is currently coordinating an Expert Working Group that will carry out similar preparation to the London Conference of 1944 in assessing how Tikanga and other Native Customary Law jurisdictions from within the UIN can combine with lawyers from official legal systems to write a charter for an International Tribunal at which the evidence to support prosecutions can take place.