Those of you who condemned the actions of the people of Southern Highlands in Mendi should have been more scared about the judiciary being compromised

The demarcation in authority and separation of powers between the three (3) arms of Government – the Judiciary, Legislature and the Executive is there to protect against apprehension of bias which may emanate from just the Government acting alone.

Unfortunately, this separation of powers has been breached. Breached in that for the first time in the history of democracy as we know it, ordinary citizens can deduce quite correctly that there is an apprehension of bias in the ruling by the Court.

This is quite evident with the recent burning of the Air Niugini aircraft and the Court House in Mendi, Southern Highlands Province.

In any democracy, a vibrant, exceptionally strong and independent judiciary and legal system, free of any influences, corruptible or otherwise, sworn to uphold the rule of law is a fundamental and essential part of the governance system.

 It becomes very dangerous when the judiciary and the legal system become subverted with external influences. Worse still is if their conduct, direct or inferred, renders their integrity questionable. This is because it will create and nurture an environment for dissent. This has been the case in many African Countries, Middle Eastern and South American Countries where coups, civil unrest and violence have been perpetrated by the general populace against Governments. This has become apparent in PNG.

Special Circumstances? What Special Circumstances? Were those boxes destroyed in a fire or a natural phenomenon that rendered the boxes and their contents unavailable to be counted thus ruling it to be special circumstance?

 Did the contents of the boxes mysteriously disappear without any physical evidence of tampering of the ballot boxes making it impossible to count? If it is neither of these circumstances, it cannot be deemed special circumstance in which case it must be by law.

But what law? Ir could it be that because Gamato may have declared the election of William Powi relying on special circumstance, the Court merely upheld that decision. But this is a case against the decision by Gamato so we go back to the question – what is the special circumstance? There is no war.. there is no natural phenomena.. the ballot boxes have always been available…. So I ask again – what is the special circumstance?

Mr. esteemed judge, if the boxes are available, not tampered with and there is no evidence presented to prove that they have been tampered with, what is the special circumstance that the Court has found or relied on to make this ruling? Is there a precedent case that you have relied on? If so, what is it? If this is to be a case precedent, future cases will rely on it so it must be a ruling that is legally proper and correct in all respects.

If the question posed here on what special circumstance is not satisfactorily answered by you, this is indeed a sad and dark day for the Courts and the legal system in this country.

No comments

Please free to leave comments.