VAKI'S CASE IN DISTRICT COURT LIKELY TO FAIL

Source Post Courier

Police Commissioner Geoffrey Vaki has now asked the district courts to set aside the warrant of arrest against Prime Minister Peter O’Neill in relation to the Paul Paraka saga.
A decision on this matter will be handed down tomorrow. This follows the National Court decision on Tuesday turning down Mr O’Neill’s bid to stop the same warrant of arrest from being implemented.
Mr Vaki based his submissions on the National Court decision which ruled that the Police Commissioner had the constitutional duty to perform and the courts cannot interfere with the functions of the police force.
Yesterday, police lawyer Sam Bonner briefed out the matter to prominent barrister Greg Sheppard of Young and Williams Lawyers to make submissions on behalf of the Police Commissioner to set the warrant of arrest aside.
The submissions were presented before Chief Magistrate Nerrie Eliakim who adjourned the matter to Friday for a ruling.
According to Mr Bonner, the submissions were based on the recent National Court decision that recognises the authority of the police force under Mr Vaki to carry out its constitutional duty to deal with every aspect of police functions, including warrants of arrest.
Mr Bonner said as per the National Court decision, Mr Vaki, as the commissioner of police, asked the District Court to discontinue the warrant on the basis that proper assessments are required and he is duty-bound to go through the investigation files to ascertain its merits.
He said Mr Vaki needs ample time to deal with the issues in an impartial and objective manner as he is being caught up with numerous court proceedings against him and he is not in a right frame of mind to deal with the warrant until such time when theses issues are settled.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Vaki's application to the District Court to set aside the warrants of arrest is misconceived and likely to fail.
Firstly the decision to engage the Country's most prominent lawyer Greg Sheppard was a tactical one. The Chief Magistrate Mrs Nerrie Eliakim who issued the warrants and also presiding over the case previously practised as a lawyer under Greg Sheppard's law firm Young & Williams. One can draw the conclusion by engaging Sheppard to argue the case on behalf of the Police that she would somehow be persuaded (influenced) by her former employer and mentor. Unfortunately Mrs Eliakim is a person of high principle and integrity, it will be no easy feat persuading her away from the principles of law. Sheppard will be trying to convince the Chief Magistrate that she erred by approving the warrants in the first place and Vaki has the Constitution powers to have the warrants set aside.
The arguments by Vaki's lawyers that the Police Commissioner had the constitutional duty to perform and the courts cannot interfere with the functions of the police force is correct, however these Constitutional duties are not exclusive to Mr. Vaki but every officer of the Police Force.. If Mr Vaki prevents any officer exercising their rights to effect an arrest without proper cause it can be interpreted as perverting the course of justice. An offence he has already been charged for and waiting committal for.
The important points to consider in this case is that application for the warrants was authorised by the former Commissioner of Police Tom Kulunga and the Chief Magistrate executed (approved) the warrants after carefully considering the weight of the evidence being sufficient to establish a prima facie case against the PM. Prima Facie is Latin meaning on the face of the evidence there is sufficient grounds.
The administrative process in obtaining the warrants has been completed during Kulunga's term and prior to Vaki coming into office. The arrest warrant is in fact a Court Order of arrest issued by the Court and since served on the accused (PM). Therefore it is now beyond Vaki's administrative authority and misconceived for him to claim he has constitutional powers over the warrants. Only the Courts can set aside the warrants if Vaki can prove they were issued without proper process or insufficient evidence neither of which he can.
The question that needs to be argued is why is it for the first time in history the PNG Constabulary has engaged high-flying private lawyers the best money can buy to represent the Police. Who will be picking up the bill when all these failed attempts just to help the PM avoid arrest and face the law like every other citizen. Why say you will review the file and yet run to court to cancel the warrants?
The irony is most members of the force struggle to find accommodation or provide for their families and yet the Top Office of the Constabulary can somehow can afford the best legal eagles not only in PNG but also in Australia. Makes you think maybe we have more money than brains.

Popular posts from this blog

HIGHLANDS FRAUD F*CKS RUNNING GOVERNMENT AGENCY,,,

PNG, VERY RICH YET STILL A VERY VERY POOR COUNTRY

AUGUSTINE MANO PNG'S PREMIER CORPORATE CROOK

BLIND LEADING THE BLIND, WHY THE PNG ECONOMY STILL SUCKS

James Marape's Missteps Openly Exposed at Australian Forum

MARAPE & PAITA ABOUT TO SIGN AWAY PNG GOLD

A Call for Local Ownership and Fairness