The National,Thursday 12th April 2012
By JACOB POK
THE Supreme Court yesterday stayed a decision by parliament to suspend Chief Justice Sir Salamo Injia and Justice Nicholas Kirriwom.
The two senior judges will continue with their normal duties pending the determination of a Supreme Court reference filed by the Morobe provincial government questioning the validity of the new law.
Parliament last week used the new judicial conduct law to suspend Sir Salamo and Kirriwom.
According to the new law, the two judges would be suspended while parliament advised the head of state to appoint a tribunal to investigate whether the two had breached the law by continuing to hear cases even after being warned of the “apprehension of bias”.
The stay order was handed down by a three-man Supreme Court bench comprising justices Panuel Mogish, George Manuhu and Don Sawong.
The order restrained parliament from enforcing section 5(2) of the new law – its next step to refer a judge to the head of state who will appoint a tribunal to investigate a judge for breach of the act.
The order states that “the effect, force, operation and implementation of the whole act is stayed and the chief justice and Kirriwom shall hear and continue to hear legal proceedings and exercise all their powers as chief justice and judge respectively and all or any of their judgments or order shall continue to have full effect and be in force”.
On Tuesday, Prime Minister
Peter O’Neill had assured protes-
ters in Port Moresby parliament would repeal the new law but on the condition that Sir Salamo and Kirriwom stepped down from their offices as judges.
The Morobe provincial executive on the same day made an application in court, along with a special reference, to seek the Supreme Court’s opinion on the validity of the new Judicial Conduct Act.
Lawyers representing the provincial executive argued that the new law was in conflict with the Constitution and an attempt to unduly punish judges.
They said there were existing provisions in the Constitution and relevant laws which dealt with disciplinary measures for judges as regards their conduct.
Lawyers representing O’Neill, Attorney-General Dr Allan Marat, MPs Moses Maladina and John Boito argued that the application was a rare case and should be dismissed.
The bench said the judges were constitutional office holders and that the act in question was not a constitutional law.
They agreed that there were serious constitutional issues on the validity of the new law.
The judges ruled that “the Constitution gives us, as members of the Supreme Court, the mandate to interpret the Constitution and the laws of the country and give paramount consideration to the dispensation of justice”.
“We took our respective oaths of office to uphold the Constitution and the laws of the independent state of Papua New Guinea and do right to all manner of people in accordance therewith, without fear, favour, affection or ill-will and we remain committed to our oaths and the dictates of the Constitution.”
They said although the act had been passed, certified into law and in full effect, the Supreme Court could consider any challenge to the constitutional validity of the act and any interim relief in the interest of justice.
THE Supreme Court yesterday stayed a decision by parliament to suspend Chief Justice Sir Salamo Injia and Justice Nicholas Kirriwom.
The two senior judges will continue with their normal duties pending the determination of a Supreme Court reference filed by the Morobe provincial government questioning the validity of the new law.
Parliament last week used the new judicial conduct law to suspend Sir Salamo and Kirriwom.
According to the new law, the two judges would be suspended while parliament advised the head of state to appoint a tribunal to investigate whether the two had breached the law by continuing to hear cases even after being warned of the “apprehension of bias”.
The stay order was handed down by a three-man Supreme Court bench comprising justices Panuel Mogish, George Manuhu and Don Sawong.
The order restrained parliament from enforcing section 5(2) of the new law – its next step to refer a judge to the head of state who will appoint a tribunal to investigate a judge for breach of the act.
The order states that “the effect, force, operation and implementation of the whole act is stayed and the chief justice and Kirriwom shall hear and continue to hear legal proceedings and exercise all their powers as chief justice and judge respectively and all or any of their judgments or order shall continue to have full effect and be in force”.
On Tuesday, Prime Minister
Peter O’Neill had assured protes-
ters in Port Moresby parliament would repeal the new law but on the condition that Sir Salamo and Kirriwom stepped down from their offices as judges.
The Morobe provincial executive on the same day made an application in court, along with a special reference, to seek the Supreme Court’s opinion on the validity of the new Judicial Conduct Act.
Lawyers representing the provincial executive argued that the new law was in conflict with the Constitution and an attempt to unduly punish judges.
They said there were existing provisions in the Constitution and relevant laws which dealt with disciplinary measures for judges as regards their conduct.
Lawyers representing O’Neill, Attorney-General Dr Allan Marat, MPs Moses Maladina and John Boito argued that the application was a rare case and should be dismissed.
The bench said the judges were constitutional office holders and that the act in question was not a constitutional law.
They agreed that there were serious constitutional issues on the validity of the new law.
The judges ruled that “the Constitution gives us, as members of the Supreme Court, the mandate to interpret the Constitution and the laws of the country and give paramount consideration to the dispensation of justice”.
“We took our respective oaths of office to uphold the Constitution and the laws of the independent state of Papua New Guinea and do right to all manner of people in accordance therewith, without fear, favour, affection or ill-will and we remain committed to our oaths and the dictates of the Constitution.”
They said although the act had been passed, certified into law and in full effect, the Supreme Court could consider any challenge to the constitutional validity of the act and any interim relief in the interest of justice.
