Hearing Lacks Quality

SPROX WALKER

I was one of the many people who attended the lea­dership tribunal of Prime Mi­nister Sir Michael So­mare in court room 1 at the Waigani National Court premises recently. As a layman, I understand the different functions of the office of public prosecutor and the Om­budsman Commission.

I also understand what the tribunal is and the purpose for its set-up and its conduct of the proceedings.
During the course of the tribunal, three issues surfaced and I am troubled by them. First, the composition of the tribunal.

Whilst I have no doubt about the academic and professional experiences of the members, I am disturbed by the quality of questions raised during the proceedings. These questions would not have risen if we had our own judges presiding. For the tribunal to understand the crux of the matter before them, they need to have a fair understanding of the constitutional planning committee report (CPC), the Constitution, relevant Organic Laws and enabling legislations.

The counsel from the public prosecutor and defence were going around in circles trying to educate the members of the tribunal on what is and what is not the law and how the proceedings should be conducted.
This is a big letdown for Papua New Guineans.

Did the chief justice consult with his fellow judges before appointing the members of the tribunal?
Did the Justice Minister and Attorney-General Sir Arnold Amet, a former chief justice himself, collaborate with the current chief justice to appoint members of the tribunal? Is this tribunal just a window dressing which will eventually acquit the prime minister or make him pay a penalty fee and continue to occupy the position of the prime minister?

Second, I am surprised by the level of submission made by the lead counsel from the public prosecutor’s office. Does that mean that we do not have any lawyer in the public prosecutor’s office who can do a quality submission based on facts and the appropriate law? The public prosecutor’s office looks like a sinking ship.
And this is reflected in the quality of the submission and presentation.This is truly a sad day for Papua New Guinea.

If we do not have quality lawyers in the office of the public prosecutor, the confidence and protection to be provided by that office is diminishing. How can we protect the interest of the state when matters dealt with by that office cannot be properly prosecuted within the confines of law? I think the prosecution’s submission and conduct at the tribunal was weak, incoherent and lacks substance. 

Third, the defence cannot be commended even though they did well to walk over the prosecution team. They are, at the end of the day, there for their own interest. They make money as the clock ticks.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

HIGHLANDS FRAUD F*CKS RUNNING GOVERNMENT AGENCY,,,

AUGUSTINE MANO PNG'S PREMIER CORPORATE CROOK

PNG, VERY RICH YET STILL A VERY VERY POOR COUNTRY

BLIND LEADING THE BLIND, WHY THE PNG ECONOMY STILL SUCKS

A Call for Local Ownership and Fairness

James Marape's Missteps Openly Exposed at Australian Forum

MARAPE & PAITA ABOUT TO SIGN AWAY PNG GOLD