Group says diplomatic embarrassment cannot justify withholding information about possible criminality as union calls Victoria the ‘suppression capital’ of Australia

The general counsel of Human Rights Watch and Australia’s journalists union have called for a review of a sweeping suppression order in Australia on bribery allegations involving several prominent international leaders.

WikiLeaks revealed on Monday the existence of a suppression order in the Victorian supreme court cast in broad terms that applies across the country. The order prohibits reporting on the allegations “to prevent damage to Australia’s international relations”.

Australian news organisations, including Guardian Australia, remain bound by the terms of the suppression order and cannot report the contents of the order or the names of the individuals involved.

The general counsel of Human Rights Watch, Dinah PoKempner, said: “The embarrassment of diplomatic partners is not the same thing as a threat to national security, or to the integrity of the judicial process, and diplomatic embarrassment cannot justify withholding information relating to serious criminal activity from the public.”

“Secret law is often unaccountable and inadequately justified. The government has some explaining to do as to why it sought such an extraordinary order, and the court should reconsider the need for it now that its action has come to light.”

Australia’s journalists union, the Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance, also called for the order to be reviewed. Its federal secretary, Chris Warren, said Victoria continued to be the “suppression capital” of Australia.

Warren said: “Now that the information has been published globally, where most of the individuals actually live, means that there’s a strong argument that the court should review the suppression order so that the Australian media can properly report on the issue.”

A spokeswoman for the Victorian supreme court said it was not commenting on the suppression order.

The use of suppression orders in Victoria is widespread, with far more than other parts of Australia. There have been 1,501 suppression orders across the supreme, county and magistrates courts between 2008 and 2012, according to a major study by the Melbourne law school centre for media and communications law.

Under Victoria’s Open Courts Act 2013, journalists, parties and other individuals with sufficient standing can seek a review of the terms of a suppression order. The court itself can also initiative a review of an order on its own motion.

Jason Bosland, the deputy director of the centre and a senior lecturer at Melbourne University, said that while it was difficult to examine the merits of the order, the fact its existence had now been made public meant news organisations could also seek to challenge the order.

“Now that it’s been published by WikiLeaks and the dam has effectively burst, if a media organisation sought to challenge this order now, could the court say it is still necessary? If it’s not necessary it has to be revoked,” he said.

“Suppression orders are a real concern because, as you know, media organisations are challenging these types of orders less and less because of pressure and resources. So who is it that will guard the open justice principle?”

The founder of WikiLeaks, Julian Assange, said on Monday the Australian government was “blindfolding the Australian public” through the use of the gag order.

“The concept of ‘national security’ is not meant to serve as a blanket phrase to cover up serious corruption allegations involving government officials, in Australia or elsewhere. It is in the public interest for the press to be able to report on this case,” he said.

Bosland also said that after he presented his study on suppression orders to the Victorian supreme court the centre for media and communications law was removed from the court’s lists of suppression order updates, which is sent to media professionals to tell them when suppression orders were released.

In an email seen by Guardian Australia, a supreme court officer said: “An audit of all recipients on the data base was recently undertaken to ensure that only media outlets and media lawyers received the orders, which from time to time, contain highly sensitive and confidential material. Media outlets and respective lawyers have a demonstrated need to receive such material, in order that their publications do not contravene any law.”

“As a result of the audit, any and all non-media outlets or non-media lawyer recipients were removed.”