Posted by jak How stupid, unpleasant and impolite is the Prime Minister (PM) to call the Judiciary “foolish”. The PM’s attack on the Judiciary is uncalled for, unwarranted and unbecoming of a leader, holding such a highest office in the land. Never in my lifetime have I come across a PM, who finds comfort in attacking the Judiciary, using stupid, harsh and unacceptable words. It makes me wonder if PM is mentally ill and needs psychiatric counselling. Every rationale and objective human being would have a careful selection of words and be more diplomatic in the use of words, especially when you are going to speak out against an important arm of the Government. We know at least on two occasions before he used harsh and unacceptable words in the public arena. In Parliament he said to Sir Allan Kemakesa “ Shut your mouth or otherwise I shut it for you” (or something to that effect). After becoming a PM he said, “RAMSI were caught with their pants down” (or something to that effect). Any rationale thinking human being would agree that there are acceptable words to use. For instance to Kemakeza he could have said “Silent please, I am still talking”. To the High Court he could have said, “ I am not happy that the Court denied me the right to be represented in this case”. That is more diplomatic. I am wondering if PM is using these words on the advise of his Secretary or Political Advisors or is he taking these words from his Martial Art dictionary? What does “Judicial Farce” mean? According to Oxford Advanced Learner’s dictionary, the word Farce mean “absurd, pointless or badly organised event”. In other words, the PM is saying the High Court’s conduct of the AG’s case against him is so badly organised, absurd, foolish and completely ridiculous. From another dimension, the PM is saying the High Court is stupid in the manner it handled the hearing of the AG’s case. If the PM does not know the implications of what he said, these are the possible implications that one could attach to what the PM meant, especially when you look at the circumstances surrounding his frustration in this whole episode. PM is saying the High Court’s conduct is foolish in that he was denied the opportunity to be represented in the hearing. I have interacted with the High Court as a lawyer in civil cases for 5 to 6 years, and can say that the High Court does not deny anyone the right to be represented in Court. The High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 1964, requires and the Court must be satisfied that parties, especially the Defendant is served with Court documents, before hearing of a case can proceed. In this case, I assumed that Sogavare has been served with the Court papers on the case (only the High Court can give us the true facts). When a Defendant is served, it is the obligation of the Defendant to arrange for representation in Court. Defendant could be represented by a lawyer or can appear “In Person”. In this case, I have seen on the Court listing that Sogavare had not engaged a lawyer, because the listing says representation is “In Person”. Sogavare must have been made aware of this case and should have arranged for his representation in Court. Why that did not happen is a mystery to us, outsiders. We saw it revealed in the Star, that Sogavare returned the Court papers, to AG’s office asking the AG to represent him. Of course the AG can represent Sogavare, but one would think that this is the time to use those ghost lawyers like Moti QC and the former Australian Solicitor General who have been associated with Sogavare, when he chose not to use the AG’s office from the beginning. Remember this is the root cause of this whole episode, that is making the PM look small and small (Not using the Government’s law office from the beginning to draft the Terms of Reference). I cannot speak with certainty as to why Sogavare was not represented in Court. What I do know is he tried to seek legal representation from AG, by returning Court papers to AG. To that I repeat he should have used his outside legal sources, especially whomever that lawyer is that advised him on the Terms of Reference. If he drafted it himself, then better still he should appeared in Court personally. As to representation by a lawyer, I would imagine that local lawyers would find it uneasy to represent PM, since the Bar Association had earlier made its position known in this matter, expressing support for the AG’s action. The PM furthermore alleged that High Court colluded with the AG’s office to pervert the course of Justice (Solomon Star). The PM is saying that High Court and AG’s office worked together to ensure that PM is denied representation in Court in this case (by implication). This is news to me, and I do not like to think for one moment that the High Court can do this. Only a “Contempt of Court proceeding” will establish the truth about the PM’s allegation. PM then went on to say that the Judiciary is falling under the control of foreign governments. If PM is yet ignorant about the assistance given to the Judiciary under the RAMSI partnership, then I am very surprised. The Judiciary is a sector that has received much assistance under this RAMSI and SIG partnership; a help that is appropriate to enhance the Judiciary’s capacity to respond effectively to the law and order needs of Solomon Islands. That help is very much appreciated by those of us who have seen the work of the Judiciary hampered due to lack of capacity, whether it be the provision of facilities or personals like Judges for the High Court. Former Solomon Islands Judge of the High Court, Justice Frank Kabui, ceased to be a Judge just because the Parliament failed to amend a Constitutional provision relating to his eligibility in terms of age. Former Chief Justice of the High Court Sir John Muria year after year has called on successive Governments for a separate budget for the Judiciary, for valid reasons. Those calls fell on deaf years. There was a time when the High Court building’s roof was damaged and water was leaking through the building, during rainy times. There was a time when the High Court does not have adequate courtrooms and other resources. There was a time when the Customary Lands Appeal Courts could not sit to hear cases due to lack of money. All these were a problem because the Government had failed to provide financial assistance to the Judiciary. And so any rationale human being should appreciate the assistance to the Judiciary. If the PM is saying this assistance is a gateway to foreign Government’s controlling the Judiciary, and if that did occur in the AG’s case against him, then that is a serious allegation. A “Contempt of Court proceedings” would help to reveal the truth about how the case, was handled by the High Court. Suffice to say that the PM’s allegation is serious and had the potential to impair the public’s trust and respect in the work of the Judiciary, in particular the High Court. Does the PM’s action amount to “Contempt of Court”? According to Butterworths Concise Australian Legal dictionary, Contempt of Court means, “Words or actions which interfere with the proper administration of justice or constitute a disregard for the authority of the Court. Contempt of Court comprises both the physical disturbance of a particular proceedings in a court that prevent the court from attending to its business, and any interference with the authority of the Court that impairs confidence and respect in the court and its judgments” The PM’s words in the print and voice media (Solomon Star and SIBC) have the potential to impair the confidence and respect that the public has in the work of the court and its judgment. For instance the public will be of the opinion that any judgment by the High Court in the AG’s case is a bad judgment because the High Court has colluded with the AG’s office in the hearing of this case. Did the High Court really collude with the AG’s office in the conduct of this case? We do not know, but it is in our interest that these serious allegations be cleared through a “Contempt of Court proceedings”. The Court or AG’s chambers must pursue this to clear the clouds surrounding the PM’s words, and to restore public confidence and respect in the Court and its judgments. If the PM’s allegation that foreign Governments are controlling the work of the Judiciary is true, then those foreign Governments should be condemned. If these are mere allegations without any basis, then the PM must be made to account for his words through a “Contempt of Court proceedings”. These allegations are serious. It is a cause for real concern to those of us who work in the Judiciary. We do not want to appear before foreign Judges, with any suspicion that may be aroused as a result of the wild allegations from the PM’s words. Something must be done to rectify the damage caused. CONCLUSION My view is that the words by the PM in the print and voice media amounts to Contempt of Court and a Contempt of Court proceeding must be instigated against the PM and appropriate sanction must be imposed on the PM, if it is a case of contempt of Court. I conclude by calling on the High Court or AG’s office to instigate a “Contempt of Court proceedings” against the PM. We must protect the work and status quo of the Judiciary at all cost. As for me, I still have high respect for the work of the Court and its judgments. I do not subscribe to the PM’s view expressed through SIBC, last Friday, saying that the public in Solomon Islands has lost trust in the work of the Judiciary. Dated 5th day of September 2006.
on 6/9/2006, 12:56 pm
202.1.164.210
PRIME MINISTER’S ATTACK ON THE JUDICIARY AMOUNTS TO CONTEMPT OF COURT.
Message Thread:
« Back to thread