A case involving a Chinese woman detained by immigration authorities in Fiji while holding a Vanuatu passport which has now been cancelled will return to the High Court at Lautoka on May 26.
Hong Liu has filed a writ of Habeas Corpus and is also seeking injunctive orders from the court that Fijian authorities do not deport her to China.
The law firm of Vosarogo Lawyers is representing Hong Liu and began legal proceedings on April 5 at the Lautoka High Court. She was seeking an interim injunction to restrain the Director of Immigration, the Commissioner of Police, Airports Fiji Limited, Civil Aviation Authority of Fiji, Air Pacific Fiji Limited trading as Fiji Airways and Air Terminal Services Fiji Limited from removing Hong Liu from Fiji.
Background to the case
Ateca Duabaubau of Vosarogo Lawyers has filed an affidavit in court which states Liu has a Vanuatu Passport with the number RV0168396. Ms Duabaubau said Liu travelled to Fiji on her Vanuatu passport which was issued on June 28, 2022 and expires on June 27, 2032. She says that attempts by Vosarogo Lawyers to visit Liu have been blocked by Immigration officials who maintain that no lawyer is allowed to see her.
“Ateca assumes that Liu’s passport has been confiscated by Immigration officials. As a citizen of Vanuatu, and a holder of a valid Vanuatu passport, Liu is entitled to enter Fiji visa-free,” Justice Anare Tuilevuka said in an interim ruling May 7.
The court has also been informed by Ms Duabaubau that Liu also held a Chinese passport which was issued on April 16, 2014 for ten years. This passport was to expire on April 15, 2024.
Ms Duabaubau believes that China does not recognise dual citizenship.
This means that Liu would have lost her Chinese citizenship upon her acquiring Vanuatu citizenship in 2022.
“In any event, the now long-expired Chinese passport can no longer be used for travel,” Justice Tuilevuka said.
The affidavit of Ms Duabaubau states no immigration or other government official has provided to Liu any information as to why they are detaining her.
“She does not understand much English and has no knowledge why she is being detained in a foreign country. It was through Liu’s son’s inquiries into the whereabouts of Liu that he decided to engage Vosarogo Lawyers.
“A letter dated 03 April 2025 by Etonia Moce, a solicitor in the firm of Vosarogo Lawyers’ to the Director of Immigration, remains unanswered. Liu has not committed any criminal offence, let alone, is she facing a charge or has been convicted of any criminal offence in Fiji or elsewhere in the world.”
Cancellation of passports
According to a report in the Vanuatu newspaper The Daily Post, on March 16, the Vanuatu government, through the Department of Immigration and Passport Services (DoIPS), cancelled the Vanuatu passports of three Chinese nationals for fraudulently obtaining them, one of which was Hong Liu. The other two were Huang Bo and Tang Ying.
The High Court has noted that Hong Liu resided at Naisoso with her husband Tang Ying and at one point in time, apparently, she did lodge an application for a residence permit with the Director of Immigration.
It also noted that the Vanuatu government said both Hong Liu and Tang Ying have been wanted by Interpol Beijing since September 2022 for organising and leading pyramid selling activities and the DoIPS acted on instructions from the responsible minister to cancel the three fraudulently acquired passports after the Prime Minister made it clear that Vanuatu will not harbour criminals.
Right to challenge
lawfulness of detention
In his May 7 ruling Justice Tuilevuka said the law presumes that everyone has a right to liberty, adding the onus is therefore on anyone who has acted in abridgement of a person’s liberty to explain the basis of his or her actions.
“The courts are, therefore, required to give priority to any application for habeas corpus The habeas corpus proceedings is not meant to determine the guilt or otherwise of a detainee,” said Justice Tuilevuka.
He further stated Section 13(1)(i) of the Constitution gives a detained person a right “to challenge the lawfulness of the detention before a court and, if the detention is unlawful, to be released”.
“A detention may be lawful and comply with statute. However, if one is to challenge the necessity or proportionality of that detention, the habeas corpus proceedings may be ill-suited.
“There is a view that the necessity and proportionality of a detention which is prima facie valid and lawful, are best dealt with under Order 53 or vide the Constitutional Redress Rules.”
The judge added Section 9 of the Constitution declares in general terms that every person must not be deprived of personal liberty.
Justice Tuilevuka directed that the Notice of Motion be served against the alleged detaining authorities who are named as defendants at least eight clear days before May 26, 2025.
He will hear all the parties on May 26, 2025.
