AMET A JOKE!

IT must be acknowledged that Justice Minister and Attorney-General Sir Arnold Amet is now a political animal and has vested political aspirations and interest to protect.

However, it must not be forgotten that as minister, he is the chairman of Judicial and Legal Services Commission, the body that is responsible for the appointment of judges, magistrates and other constitutional office holders like the public prosecutor and public solicitor. While he is no longer the chief justice, there is still this connection that keeps the relationship alive in a fatherly position. He may be a political animal but he still holds the power and authority to protect the integrity of the courts and judges. 

Sadly that is not the case anymore. For the attorney-general to come out and gun down the Supreme Court and judges last Friday without the benefit of appreciating the substance of the judgment in the Sir Michael Somare and Ombudsman Commission matter delivered the previous Friday and appraising himself fully of what the Supreme Court said, which the media had blown out of context, thereby attracting so much publicity and controversy in recent days, is regrettable and deplorable. 

It is a behaviour and response unbecoming of a learned man, particularly a former chief justice, who ought to know very well that what the papers were reporting was not exactly what the Supreme Court decided or ordered.

When big men act like that, one simply wonders where this country is headed. This is not the first time that Sir Arnold had allowed emotions to take the better of him. It was within Sir Arnold’s right to ask for and receive a copy of the judgment and to have the same read and understood before responding to all the drama and hype that was created by the media.

His job is to advise the government on properly ascertained facts and not respond to media sensationalism for political point-scoring to the detriment of those he has the mandate to protect.

Sir Arnold knows too well that the Supreme Court can over-rule its own decision but this requires greater number of judges than the composition of the bench in the earlier case whose opinion is questioned.

In this case, the three-man bench of Deputy Chief Justice Gibbs Salika, Justices Nicholas Kirriwom and Ambeng Kandakasi did not over-rule the decision of another three-man bench because it does not happen like that and Sir Arnold knows that. 

They only made passing remarks of an earlier decision as a signal to indicate an apparent discrepancy or inconsistency in the law which the three-man bench was entitled to do.  The whole aim was to draw the attention of concerned parties, in­cluding the attorney-general, to request for a full bench of the Supreme Court to be constituted by the chief justice to settle the conflicting positions in the law once and for all by filing section 19 reference.

Our constitution is vibrant and evolving all the time. It is never stagnant. The Supreme Court is the only pillar of hope to breach the gaps and fill the vacuum where the law is not clear. The Supreme Court made no decision or orders against anyone else other than to dismiss the application of Sir Michael in that judgment complained about.

Sir Arnold must retract all that he said about the Supreme Court and apologise unreservedly to the judges.

This is a clear case where Sir Arnold blew his top without being fully appraised of the facts that were easily within his reach and, thereby, could well be liable for contempt of the Supreme Court comprising Salika, Kirriwom and Kandakasi.

All he needed to do was to phone the court, obtain the judgment, read it and then decide whether all the hysteria created by the media was justified. The chief justice must demand this from the attorney-general or the law must be allowed to take its course for contempt.

-An observer's letter to the National