A significant legal battle in Vanuatu has reached a critical turning point, with the Supreme Court delivering a landmark decision in favor of the Vanuatu Teachers Union (VTU) and its members. The ruling, dated May 30, 2025, has sent shockwaves and has drawn strong commentary from Opposition Leader Alatoi Ishmael Kalsakau.

This blog post will break down the court’s decision and analyze the Opposition Leader’s powerful critique, offering a comprehensive look at what’s happening.

---

The Supreme Court’s Resounding Decision: A Win for Teachers

The core of the Supreme Court’s ruling is a clear vindication of the teachers’ industrial action and a strong rebuke of the government’s disciplinary measures. Here are the key takeaways from the judgment:

1. Strike Declared Lawful: Crucially, the court declared that the industrial action initiated by the VTU on June 6, 2024 (and recalled on August 10, 2024), was, and remains, lawful. This overturns the government’s previous stance that the strike was illegal.
2. Disciplinary Actions Quashed: All disciplinary decisions made by the “1st Defendant” (understood to be the Teaching Service Commission, or TSC, the government body responsible for teachers) subsequent to their initial Decision No. 5 of 2024 have been quashed (cancelled and made void). This means the suspensions and terminations of hundreds of teachers are now invalid.
3. Government Must Pay High Legal Costs: The court ordered the TSC to pay the legal costs of the VTU and the individual teachers. Significantly, these costs are awarded on an “indemnity basis.” This is a much higher level of legal costs than usual, meaning the TSC will likely have to pay the actual, often substantial, fees that the teachers’ lawyers charged, rather than a standard, lower court rate. This is seen as a strong penalty for the TSC’s conduct.

The Underlying Flaw: Misguided Legal Advice or Misleading Information?

The court’s judgment also delved into the legal advice that the government received, hinting at why things went so wrong for the TSC:

• The court stated that it could not definitively say the Attorney General’s (AG) advice was wrong unless it knew exactly what information the AG was given.
• It suggested that if the AG was presented with a specific scenario (e.g., that the first strike had truly ended and a new strike was commencing, requiring a new notice), then the AG’s advice would have been “perfectly correct” or “impeccable.”
• However, the critical twist was the court’s observation that the AG’s advice did not cover the main issue of whether the initial strike had ever truly ended. The judge even concluded, “I suspect not,” implying that a full and proper understanding of the situation might not have supported the government’s actions.

In essence, while the AG might have given sound advice based on limited information, the court ultimately found the government’s underlying premise (that the strike was unlawful) to be incorrect. This suggests the TSC’s actions were flawed due to either misinterpreting the situation or providing incomplete information to their own legal counsel.

---

Opposition Leader’s Strong Condemnation: “Time to Throw in the Towel”

Opposition Leader Alatoi Ishmael Kalsakau has issued a series of blunt statements in Bislama, fiercely criticizing the government’s handling of the entire affair. His posts, summarized below, underscore his belief that the government has mismanaged the situation and is now facing severe, self-inflicted consequences:

On Indemnity Costs as Punishment: Kalsakau views the awarding of “indemnity costs” as a clear punishment by the court. He believes it signals that the court saw personal involvement or a lack of objectivity from the TSC members in their decisions. He starkly illustrated the financial impact, suggesting indemnity costs could be dramatically higher than standard costs, potentially costing the state millions of Vatu per hour of legal work if senior lawyers were involved.

The “Fork in the Road” Analogy: He used a powerful analogy of a lawyer advising someone about jumping from a cliff:

• A lawyer gives advice based on the information provided (e.g., river depth).
• However, if the client withholds crucial information (like a “fork” or branch that could block a fall), they cannot blame the lawyer when problems arise from that hidden detail.
• Kalsakau explicitly applies this to the teachers’ case, asserting that the government (TSC) failed to inform the Attorney General that the first strike had never truly ended due to a prior “Undertaking Agreement.” This agreement, he argues, allowed teachers to resume industrial action without needing a new 30-day notice.
• His conclusion: The judge is telling the TSC, “You can’t blame your lawyer, because he advised based on the information you gave him, but you didn’t give him the full picture.”

A History of Costly Missteps: Kalsakau provided a detailed timeline, highlighting the TSC’s repeated legal losses and escalating costs:

• The Appeal Court in February 2025 had already confirmed that teachers were suspended solely for strike participation and had ordered the TSC to pay costs (potentially up to VT 38 million).
• The TSC continued disciplinary actions even after legal claims were filed.
• They used a static defense despite new developments and even tried to lift a court-ordered stay on suspensions, a move criticized by the Appeal Court as “unnecessary and inappropriate.”
• He condemned the government’s decision to pursue criminal prosecution and their failure to heed the Supreme Court’s early advice to simply seek a declaration on the strike’s legality (a more efficient and cheaper option).
• The massive increase in disciplined teachers (from 22 to 598), coupled with the handling of the case, directly influenced the judge’s decision to award indemnity costs.
• He pointed out that the government claimed compliance with court rules but failed to demonstrate it in their submissions, which directly triggered the indemnity costs under court rules (Rule 5.5(5)).

A Call for Accountability and End to the Battle: Kalsakau’s strongest message is his call for the government to abandon any further appeals. He believes:

• The “writing was already on the wall” for the TSC to lose, making further appeals a “losing battle” and a waste of public funds.
• The chances of success for an appeal are “not very attractive.”
• If individuals within the TSC/government insist on appealing, they should personally bear the financial risk and pay for the appeal out of their own pockets, with the state only reimbursing them if they win. If they lose, they should cover all past and future costs.
• He argues that the government’s actions might even constitute a statutory breach that could lead to prosecution of those responsible.

He concludes with a plea for the government to act with “common sense,” quickly agree on a settlement with the teachers, and facilitate their immediate return to classrooms for the benefit of Vanuatu’s students. “It is time to put this matter to rest,” he states.

---

This Supreme Court decision marks a defining moment for teachers’ rights in Vanuatu and places immense pressure on the government to re-evaluate its approach. The legal and financial implications are significant, and the Opposition Leader’s words serve as a stark warning about accountability and the responsible use of public resources.