Court rejects Somare’s appeal

The National, Tuesday 21st Febuary 2012

By JACOB POK
THE Waigani Supreme Court yesterday dismissed a bid by Angoram MP Arthur Somare to stop a leadership tribunal from hearing misconduct allegations against him. 
Justice Bernard Sakora found that the application to stay the tribunal was an abuse of court process and without merit. 
He ordered the leadership tribunal to reconvene. 
Somare first made an unsuccessful attempt last year to stop the tribunal in the national court. His appeal was thrown out then and he further appealed to the higher court to review former’s decision. 
His lawyer Goiye Gileng filed an application for stay on the basis that documents in relation to his client’s referral were signed by state prosecutor Kathwa Umpake and not the then acting public prosecutor Camillus Sambua.
He asked whether the tribunal had the jurisdiction to deal with the referral signed by a state prosecutor when the Constitution required the public prosecutor to sign the referral. 
Gileng argued that the National Court judge had erred in his decision when dismissing the appeal and asked the Supreme Court to review this decision.
State lawyer Sam Koim argued that the issue of signature on documents or the referral did not alter or affect the contents of the referral. 
He argued that there was no arguable case in the appeal and should be dismissed. 
He said the tribunal had been unnecessarily dragged on.
Yesterday, Sakora, in a lengthy ruling, found that Somare’s appeal was unnecessary and without any arguable grounds. 
He explained that the state prosecutor had the right to sign documents on behalf of the public prosecutor like they do when prosecuting any other criminal cases in courts. 
“Duties and functions of state prosecutors prosecuting indictable offences also apply to misconduct cases.
“Umpake’s action was not unconstitutional … he carried out his legitimate duty as a state prosecutor on behalf of his legitimate office,” Sakora said.  
He said such appeal should be made when there was instances of a life and death situation and not loss of office. 
“Loss of office is not the same as loss of life, or serving years in jail.”

Court to hear special references

The National, Thursday 09th Febuary 2012

By JACOB POK and ANGELINE KARIUS
THE Supreme Court will begin preliminary hearings on two special references relating to the legitimacy of  the government from next Monday. 
This was decided by a three-judge bench hearing a series of cases relating to political developments in the country which led to wrangling between Sir Michael Somare and Peter O’Neill over who should be running the country’s affairs.
The courtroom was packed to capacity again yesterday as the bench headed by deputy Chief Justice Gibbs Salika, Bernard Sakora and Nicholas Kirriwom gave directives on how to deal with the 14 related cases before the court.  
The judges issued a blanket stay on all other cases while they focused on the two references –SCR 1 of 2012 filed by Dr Allan Marat and SCR 2 of 2012 filed by parliament. 
Sir Michael’s lawyer, Kerenga Kua, yesterday also raised a question of competency on whether Marat, O’Neill’s appointed attorney-general, had the right to file a reference. 
This would be among other questions to be raised in the next sitting of the Supreme Court. 
Among the 12 cases stayed was an application to discharge orders concerning the suspension of Chief Justice Sir Salamo Injia. 
The court will later decide on a time length of the proceedings, appoint a penal of judges to preside on the cases and clear other preliminary issues before the substantive hearings. 
The reference filed by Marat consists of 29 constitutional questions relating to the actions of parliament since Aug 2 last year. It was when parliament passed a motion to create a vacancy in the office of the prime minister that subsequently removed Sir Michael from the post and appointed  O’Neill as prime minister.
The questions in the references seek the courts opinion on whether parliament had erred in any of its decisions or did anything outside of the constitution.
The questions include whether or not the MP’s seat becomes vacant when the MP is absent from three consecutive parliament secession, whether parliament had inherent power to elect a prime minister when the incumbent abandons the post, whether section 134 of the Constitution prevents the Supreme Court from making orders that dictate the duties of parliament and other relevant questions. 
Rimbink Pato, a lawyer representing a party in one of the cases, said he supported the stand by Kua. 
Pato suggested that the fastest way to deal with all the cases was for the Supreme Court to establish a legitimate attorney-general and prime minister first before references were heard.