Decode this

14/02/2026

14/02/2026

The Pacific Islands Beauty Pageant panel shows good regional diversity, which is positive. However, there appears to be a concentration of judges from one country, including key roles like Chief Judge and Scrutineer.

This doesn’t automatically mean the competition is unfair, but good governance standards encourage balanced representation and clear conflict-of-interest safeguards. Fairness is not only about integrity — it’s also about public confidence and visible neutrality.

Greater transparency and balance would strengthen credibility in future competitions.

14/02/2026

GROUP NO — AN ANALOGY

Imagine you are in a hospital.
A patient has undergone major surgery.
The surgeons are inside the operating theatre reviewing scans, stitching carefully, making sure everything is done properly.
Outside, family members gather and start shouting:
“Open the door now!”
“We paid for the surgery!”
“We demand the result immediately!”
But surgery does not move faster because people shout outside.
If doctors rush because of pressure, mistakes can happen.
The safest outcome comes from careful review, professional judgment and independence from outside noise

The Supreme Court is similar.

Once a constitutional case is before the judges, it is in the “operating theatre” of the law.
Public pressure does not improve constitutional reasoning.
It risks compromising it.
Democracy is not about forcing doors open.
It is about respecting the process inside the room.

14/02/2026

Under Vanuatu’s Education Act, a registered school must 👉Provide and maintain classrooms and other buildings in good condition 👉Comply with reasonable standards of health and safety
If a school fails on these fronts, its registration can be reviewed and ultimately cancelled by the Director General of Education, etc...

14/02/2026

🔴 When Is a Red Card Given?
A player must be sent off for any of the following seven offences:
1️⃣ Serious Foul Play
A tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent or uses excessive force (usually when contesting for the ball).
2️⃣ Violent Conduct
Violence against anyone (opponent, teammate, referee, spectator), whether the ball is in play or not.
3️⃣ Spitting
Spitting at any person.
4️⃣ Denying an Obvious Goal-Scoring Opportunity (DOGSO)
When a player illegally stops a clear goal chance (e.g., deliberate handball or foul on last defender).
👉 Exception: If the foul is a genuine attempt to play the ball inside the penalty area, it may be downgraded to a yellow card (depending on circumstances).
5️⃣ Offensive, Insulting or Abusive Language / Gestures
Includes serious verbal abuse toward officials or opponents.
6️⃣ Receiving a Second Yellow Card
Two cautions in the same match = automatic red card.
7️⃣ Serious Team Official Misconduct
Coaches or officials can also be shown a red card for irresponsible behavior.

14/02/2026

CAN HE WIN?

Yes, he can win legally, but it depends entirely on the strength of the evidence and whether criminal intent can be proven beyond reasonable doubt. For offences such as deception, the prosecution must establish dishonest intent; for misappropriation, they must prove the money was entrusted to him and unlawfully converted; for theft, they must demonstrate dishonest taking; and for breaches of the Leadership Code, they must show failure to act in the public interest or abuse of office.

Member of Parliament (MP) for Ambae Constituency, President of the Rural Development Party (RDP), and Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Jay Ngwele, is scheduled for two distinct criminal proceedings next week in Vanuatu’s courts, facing a total of 33 charges alleging deception, misappropriation, theft, and breaches of leadership duties involving more than VT2.1 million in public and private funds.

READ MORE: https://www.dailypost.vu/news/mp-ngwele-faces-dual-criminal-hearings-next-week/article_020ad78f-27b2-5ebb-82b2-b1569c4c2a70.html

14/02/2026

GROUP NO OLI STAP APPLY FROM PROTEST be bae oli protest lo hu? I kat seperation blo pawa ia. Spos oli target Supreme Court building mo traem Attempts to pressure judges directly hemia oli sta Interfere wetem wan court operation ia mo spos yu stap incites hostility against judicial officers

Then it may cross into:
🔒Contempt of court
🔒Obstruction of lawful authority
🔒Public disorder

-----

DISCLAIMER
This message is directed at public statements and actions publicly attributed to “Group NO” in relation to proposed protest activities.

It does not target any individual personally, nor does it allege criminal conduct. The purpose is to clarify constitutional principles regarding separation of powers and the protection of judicial independence.

All citizens, including members of Group NO, retain the constitutional right to peaceful assembly and freedom of expression, provided those rights are exercised within the limits of the law.

Any reference to potential legal consequences relates only to general legal principles under Vanuatu law and should not be interpreted as a threat or accusation.

13/02/2026

❌ The Speaker did not personally appear and give live sworn evidence in court.
✅ A sworn affidavit appears to have been filed as part of the proceedings.

13/02/2026

🔎 Section 79 – Perjury in Judicial Proceedings

Section 79 requires strict proof of four elements before someone can be convicted of perjury: the statement must be made in a judicial proceeding, it must be false, it must be material to the issue before the court, and it must be made knowingly with the intention to mislead. The burden of proof is high. If any one of these elements cannot be established beyond reasonable doubt, the offence of perjury fails in law.

In this case, if the dispute centres on constitutional interpretation and the court simply disagreed with the Speaker’s legal reasoning, that alone does not satisfy Section 79. A judicial finding that a decision was unconstitutional does not automatically prove that a false statement was knowingly made. Being legally mistaken or advancing an interpretation later rejected by the court is not the same as deliberately giving false testimony.

🔎 Section 80 – False Statement on Oath

Section 80 similarly hinges on the requirement that the statement was made knowingly false. It is not enough to show that a statement was incorrect. The prosecution must prove that the person was aware of its falsity at the time it was made and intended to deceive.

If the Speaker genuinely believed his interpretation was correct, relied on advice from the State Law Office, or understood Article 43(2) differently from how the court ultimately interpreted it, then the essential “knowingly” element is absent. Without clear evidence of intentional deception, Section 80 cannot be satisfied. Legal disagreement or misinterpretation does not, by itself, amount to a criminal false statement on oath.

📖 Penal Code [CAP 135] – Perjury

Section 79 – Perjury

Any person who, in any judicial proceeding, knowingly gives false testimony touching any matter which is material to any question then pending in that proceeding shall be guilty of perjury.

📖 Penal Code [CAP 135] – False Statements on Oath

Section 80 – False Statements on Oath

Any person who knowingly makes a false statement on oath in a matter in which an oath is authorised or required by law shall be guilty of an offence.

---

Disclaimer:
The views expressed are based on publicly available information and applicable law, and are intended to clarify legal principles rather than to prejudge any ongoing or potential proceedings.

12/02/2026

ARE WE GOING TO COURT TO OFTEN?

Frequent legal battles risk weakening the balance between Parliament and the Judiciary, and may create unnecessary instability.

Courts are there to deal with things that break the law, not to settle political arguments. If the Opposition truly believes a decision is illegal, then going to court is the right step. But if the issue is about different opinions, timing, or political judgment, it should first be discussed in Parliament — through debate, motions, committees, and public discussion. Going to court too often can upset the balance between Parliament and the courts and can create instability, especially when the country has only recently had one full year of constitutional stability under Articles 17A and 17B.

Also, court cases should be filed because there is a strong legal reason — not just because it might bring political advantage.

---

Disclaimer:
The newspaper front page design shown is a creative mock-up produced for illustrative and promotional purposes only. It is not an official printed edition of YTS News and does not represent an actual front page layout. The design was created to visually present the reported story in a newspaper-style format. All news content referenced is based on publicly reported information, with source attributed accordingly. Any commentary, analysis, or opinions expressed are solely my own and do not represent the official position of YTS News or any affiliated organisation.

12/02/2026

Legally, an MP may submit information or documents to the police if he believes a potential offence has occurred, as any citizen has the right to lodge a complaint. This action is not automatically illegal. However, the legality depends on whether the Commission of Inquiry (COI) report was lawfully in his possession and whether it was subject to confidentiality restrictions under the Commissions of Inquiry Act or any official directive. If the document was classified or unlawfully obtained, there could be legal implications; if not, providing it to police for investigation would generally fall within lawful conduct. The key issue is not the act of submission itself, but whether any statutory confidentiality obligations were breached.

Our front page for today📰
Read more on our Daily Post Newspaper or visit our website: https://www.dailypost.vu 🌐🗞️