In the last couple of years there has seemingly been so many high profile cases referred to the Supreme Court to interpret and apply relevant provisions of Constitutional Law(s). During this time why is it that not one able body has tasked the Supreme Court to interpret and resolve once and for all the issue of when exactly a leader becomes automatically suspended from office once that leader has been referred to face a leadership tribunal? It should be very clear cut in law (& not a guessing game) of when exactly an office holder becomes automatically suspended once referred... ------------------------------------------------------------------ JUDGE: COURTS NOT CLEAR ON SUSPENSIONS! By Todagia Kelpla, Post Courier, 12th Jan 2015 A senior National and Supreme Court judge has expressed concern that there is conflicting Supreme Court authority on the timing of suspension of a leader under the Organic Law following the Public Prosecutor’s decision to refer a leader to a tribunal. Justice David Cannings made these comments last Thursday, suggesting that the authorities tasked under section 19(1) of the Constitution of the Independent State Of Papua New Guinea to make applications to the Supreme Court should consider making an application on this issue. My suggestion is that perhaps one or more authorities that are tasked to make applications to the Supreme Court under Section 19(1) of the Constitution for the opinion of the Supreme Court on any question relating to interpretation or application of a provision of a constitutional law, might consider making such an application to resolve the issue on the timing of a suspension. That issue might then be brought before the Supreme Court at the same time as the other references. He highlighted some Supreme Court decisions as examples, like in Patrick Pruaitch MP v Chronox Manek (2010) SC1052 where the Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Nicholas Kirriwom, Less Gavera Nanu and Catherine Davani in their ruling are of the opinion that the suspension of the leader under section 28 is automatic and it comes into play even before the tribunal convenes and receives the charges and statement of reasons. Other subsequent cases that followed this ruling are Patrick Pruaitch MP v Chronox Manek (2011) SC1093 and Grand Chief Sir Michael Thomas Somare v Chronox Manek, John Nero and Phoebe Sangetari (2011) SC1118. At this stage, there are conflicting authorities on whether a leader should still be in office until a tribunal meets and the statement of charges are handed over to the tribunal members for which the leader is referred.
Posted on: Sun, 11 Jan 2015 19:54:37 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015