1
IN THE WAITANGI TRIBUNAL
NEW ZEALAND
IN THE MATTER OF te Tiriti o Waitangi (not the Treaty of
Waitangi)
AND
IN THE MATTER OF the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975
AND
IN THE MATTER OF a claim by Jason Koia concerning the Post
Settlement Governance Entity of Te
Runanganui o Ngati Porou
APPLICATION FOR RECUSAL OF PRESIDING OFFICER
Dated 9 January 2012
Jason Koia
42 Darwin Road
Gisborne 4010
Telephone + 646 8684371
Email [email protected]
2
MAY IT PLEASE THE TRIBUNAL
1. I Jason Matthew Koia apply for recusal of Judge Coxhead from presiding over my
claim under urgency dated 9 January 2012. .
2. I allege that His Honour who presided over the Wai 2190 urgent hearing in
December 2009 and Wai 900 in relation to the East Coast District has been
influence by political corruption. That is to say, influenced by politics to ensure
the Ngati Porou settlement continues by all means necessary.
3. I allege His Honour is unable to give me an impartial hearing for the following
reasons;
(1) The Wai 2190 Tribunal failed to exercise its statutory functions and inquire fully
into the claim before it. That is the claim that the express mandate of Ruawaipu
was not obtained by TRONP to enter into settlement negotiations on Ruawaipu’s
behalf.
(2) To the advantage of the Crown, the Tribunal played the numbers game, that is to
say, it looked at how much support TRONP obtained without considering the
issue of informed consent, or exclusive resourcing.
(3) In doing so, the Tribunal viewed the mandate of TRONP to enter into
negotiations was valid. This was seriously flawed because the Tribunal could
have only made such a finding if it had inquired into the claim before it of express
mandate.
(4) Furthermore, the Tribunal Report dated 18 May 2010 was also in conflict with the
Supreme Court Judgement 19 May 20111, in particular forcing a claimant to
participate in and to benefit from commercial redress of the claims of others was
found not to be acceptable by the Supreme Court [at para 99].
(5) Judge Coxhead, who deferred the Wai 900 Inquiry (the inquiry to hear Ruawaipu
historical claims), has maintained his stance that the TRONP mandate to settle all
Ruawaipu historical claims is valid.
(6) On 8 July 2011, my lawyer Mr. Darrell Naden asked the Presiding Office for the
Wai 900 Inquiry (Judge Coxhead) to review its decision to adjourn the East Coast
Inquiry (Wai 900, #3.1.417). In this memorandum, Mr. Naden asserted that there
was no mitigation of the prejudice to the claimants who oppose the Ngati Porou
settlement.
(7) On 22 September 2011, Judge Coxhead in his Memorandum – Directions (Wai
900, #2.5.63) declined Mr. Naden’s request. At para 37, His Honour stated;
1 [Haronga v Waitangi Tribunal NZSC 53 ]
3
[37] The findings of the Waitangi Tribunal East Coast Settlement Report remain the
same and have not changed. While the Wai 2190 Tribunal recommended as far as
possible that the settlement benefit all those for whom TRONP claims a mandate,
the Tribunal did not recommend that the settlement between the Crown and TRONP be
delayed. [ My emphasis added]
(8) The context of His Honour’s statement above is not in the full context of his
previous recommendations below.
Having rejected the other options, we therefore recommend that the Crown ensure, as
far as possible, that the settlement will benefit all those for whom TRONP claims a
mandate. To that end we would expect, for example, that the Crown will ensure that
the post-settlement governance entity is inclusive of all those for whom TRONP has
obtained a mandate. This includes those who opposed the mandate as well as all
those who supported it. A further example is provided by the proposed two-week
recorded hearing of historical claims before the Crown. We would urge the Crown to
ensure that it is open to all those for whom TRONP is mandated.
We note that the Crown has already acknowledged that the negotiation framework can
cater for small groups and individuals. In November 2007, in response to an inquiry from
Hemi Te Nahu, the then Minister in Charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, Dr
Michael Cullen, confirmed that TRONP had approached the Crown in order to settle their
historical Treaty claims, including the claims of Ruawaipu and Uepohatu. “The Crown
considers; he continued:
that negotiations with large natural groupings are more likely to be lasting and
allow the parties to develop a settlement package that covers a wide range of
redress. Further, the interests of particular iwi, hapu groups or individuals need
not be subsumed during the negotiations process. The negotiations framework
can allow for these various interests to be addressed. 2 [My emphasis added]
(9) I allege that His Honour in his 22 September Directions, at para 37, misconstrued
the context of the Wai 2190 recommendations to avoid the issues and conflict
with my lawyers request.
(10) It is clear that to help alleviate prejudice towards opposing claimants, that
“opposing” groups were to be catered for. Mr. Naden made it clear that
mitigation was not being provided to those TRONP had claimed a mandate for, in
this regard, those that opposed the settlement.
2 East Coast Settlement Report 2010, page 65
4
(11) Judge Coxhead in his Directions, at para 37, makes no referrence to or gives no
consideration to those who opposed the TRONP settlement. In this case, all of
Mr. Naden’s claimants’.
4. The Waitangi Tribunal is bound to the principles of natural justice, in which I am
entitled to impartial and competent adjudication.
5. Therefore, by way of relief I ask for the recusal of Judge Coxhead from presiding
over my urgency application.
Dated this 9th day of January 2012
Jason Koia
To the Registrar, Waitangi Tribunal