PNGBLOGS

Self Interest crooks and thieves - read Matthew 7:16 The Papua New Guinea Speaker, Jeffrey Nape, has certified the Judicial Conduct Act 2012, despite assurances from the government that implementation of the law would be delayed. There’s major disquiet over the legislation which allows the government to suspend judges. The prime minister, Peter O’Neill, said late last week that the law would be subjected to a review by the Constitutional Law Reform Commission. That process was to take nine months. However, the Post Courier reports that Mr Nape signed the law into effect last Friday. Since then Mr O’Neill has reconfirmed his intention for the law to be deferred and for it to be referred to the Commission for awareness and wider consultation under the chairmanship of Gabriel Kapris. A spokesperson says the Speaker’s certifying of the law is conditional and doesn’t reflect a change in the government’s position. Radio NZ

Self Interest crooks and thieves - read Matthew 7:16 The Papua New Guinea Speaker, Jeffrey Nape, has certified the Judicial Conduct Act 2012, despite assurances from the government that implementation of the law would be delayed. There’s major disquiet over the legislation which allows the government to suspend judges. The prime minister, Peter O’Neill, said late last week that the law would be subjected to a review by the Constitutional Law Reform Commission. That process was to take nine months. However, the Post Courier reports that Mr Nape signed the law into effect last Friday. Since then Mr O’Neill has reconfirmed his intention for the law to be deferred and for it to be referred to the Commission for awareness and wider consultation under the chairmanship of Gabriel Kapris. A spokesperson says the Speaker’s certifying of the law is conditional and doesn’t reflect a change in the government’s position. Radio NZ

The government of Papua New Guinea has failed in a bid to have last year's constitutional case about who is the country's legitimate leader reheard, after a judge said allowing it would sanction "legislation by surprise and ambush". However, the court has yet to decide on whether the nation's chief justice, Sir Salamo Injia, and justice Nicholas Kerriwom should step aside amid allegations of bias against the government. In what was supposed to be the first day of hearings into the legality of parliamentary decisions since the government of Peter O'Neill took office, lawyers instead revisited old ground on Monday. Government lawyers argued to have the 2011 case be reheard because parliament passed laws disqualifying former prime minister Sir Michael Somare from parliament. The laws passed three days before the court handed down its December 12 judgment that Sir Michael was unconstitutionally deposed from office

The government of Papua New Guinea has failed in a bid to have last year's constitutional case about who is the country's legitimate leader reheard, after a judge said allowing it would sanction "legislation by surprise and ambush". However, the court has yet to decide on whether the nation's chief justice, Sir Salamo Injia, and justice Nicholas Kerriwom should step aside amid allegations of bias against the government. In what was supposed to be the first day of hearings into the legality of parliamentary decisions since the government of Peter O'Neill took office, lawyers instead revisited old ground on Monday. Government lawyers argued to have the 2011 case be reheard because parliament passed laws disqualifying former prime minister Sir Michael Somare from parliament. The laws passed three days before the court handed down its December 12 judgment that Sir Michael was unconstitutionally deposed from

By STEVEN ANDRE I have cited a copy of the Judicial Conduct Act 2012. I looked at the Act and here is what I have assessed (my personal assessment). The Act appears to have only 5 principal provisions. The preamble to the Act reads: “Being an Act to implement Section 157 of the Constitution, to safeguard, protect or promote the integrity of our legal system based on the principle that an independent, fair, and competent judiciary shall interpret and apply the laws that govern us and that judges, individually and collectively, must respect and honour the judicial office as a public trust and strive to enhance and maintain confidence in our legal system, and for related purposes.” Section 1 aligns the Act to be consistent with the Constitution. Section 2 provides a short definition of some of the words used in the Act. Section 3 imposes a duty on the Judges to uphold the integrity of the judiciary as outlined in the preamble. Section 4 discourages judges from conducting in a manner that

By STEVEN ANDRE I have cited a copy of the Judicial Conduct Act 2012. I looked at the Act and here is what I have assessed (my personal assessment). The Act appears to have only 5 principal provisions. The preamble to the Act reads: “Being an Act to implement Section 157 of the Constitution, to safeguard, protect or promote the integrity of our legal system based on the principle that an independent, fair, and competent judiciary shall interpret and apply the laws that govern us and that judges, individually and collectively, must respect and honour the judicial office as a public trust and strive to enhance and maintain confidence in our legal system, and for related purposes.” Section 1 aligns the Act to be consistent with the Constitution. Section 2 provides a short definition of some of the words used in the Act. Section 3 imposes a duty on the Judges to uphold the integrity of the judiciary as outlined in the preamble. Section 4 discourages judges from conducting in a mann

Paul Paraka Lawyers have gone at great length to suppress the tabling of the Finance Commission of Inquiry by obtaining a Court Order in Alotau on a Saturday, which rest...raining order is collecting dust in the National and Supreme Court registry to-date. The Finance Inquiry also looked into funds paid out in Court Judgements when Paul Paraka Lawyers was briefed out by the State on a retainer basis to act for the State in legal suits. In late 2006, when Mr Bire Kimisopa was appointed as the Justice Minister, Paul Paraka Lawyers contract was terminated. Mr Paraka took the State to Court for some outstanding bills which were quantified by the Court as around K6million plus. That amount was not paid out as the State appealed the Orders of the National Court and there are some restraining orders issued by the Supreme Court which I understand are still current. On 17th February 2012, a Second batch of payments under the Court Judgments and Interests vote was paid totalling K45,585,468.73.