Leader of PNG Party Belden Namah has urged the Supreme Court, Public Prosecutor and the Ombudsman Commission (OC) to speed up the referral process of Prime Minister Sir Michael Somare and his son, Public Enterprises Arthur Somare, both facing alleged misconduct charges.
Namah noted that the referral of the father and son by the OC involving two high profile state officials was of public interest and the constitutional office holders were duty bound to ensure the cases were dealt with in a timely manner.
He stressed that the people of Papua New Guinea expected speedier result of the court appeal by Sir Michael to stop the OC from investigating his alleged misconduct charges relating to declaration of annual returns.
Namah said the matter involving Sir Michael and Minister Somare were of national interest and the people of Papua New Guinea were entitled to get a decision one way or another.
He pointed out that the case involving the Prime Minister went before the High Court in 2008, over two years ago.
"Why has it taken the Supreme Court so long?
The public is becoming suspicious.
It is in the Supreme Court's interest to bolster the public confidence in the High Court," he stressed.
The OC alleges that Sir Michael failed to lodge annual returns for the periods 1994/5, 1995/96 and 1996/7, his lodgement returns for the periods 1998/99, 1999/2000, 2000/01, 2001/02, 20003/04 and incomplete statements for periods 1992/93, 1993/94,1997/98, 1999/2000, 2000.01, 20001/02 and 20002/03.
The OC referred the Grand Chief to the Public Prosecutor for it to ask the Chief Justice to appoint a Leadership Tribunal to deal with the allegations, but Sir Michael went to court seeking orders to stop the OC from investigating him.
On June 24, 2008, National Court Judge, Justice Derek Hartshorn rejected an application by Sir Michael for a temporary injunction to stop the OC from investigating him.
When rejecting Sir Michael's temporary injunction, Judge Hartshorn ruled that it was not in the interest of the justice of the general public that lawful authorities should be prevented from performing their legal and constitutional duties.
The PM had gone to court asking the court to grant him certain declarations and a permanent injunction preventing the OC from continuing its investigations.
Sir Michael had contended that the OC lacked jurisdiction to continue the investigations.
The conduct of their investigations was oppressive, subject to excessive delays and breached the rules of natural justice to act fairly reasonably and in good faith.
The PM also alleged that the decision not to engage an independent examiner under section 19 of the Organic Law on Duties and Responsibilities of Leadership, as requested by him was decided by an individual and not the majority quorum of three independent constitutional office holders despite bias allegations raised by his client against the commission.
However, Judge Hartshorn in a seven-page decision stated that Sir Michael did not have a strong case to stop the OC from continuing its investigations.
"It is not in the interest of justice or the public interest that lawful authorities should be prevented from carrying out their lawful investigations.
"Any such prevention should only occur in very clear cases of abuse," Judge Hartshorn stressed.
The judge was satisfied given the evidence before him that the PM's appeal was not serious and the OC be allowed to continue its investigations.
Effectively, the ruling meant that the Public Prosecutor could proceed to ask the Chief Justice to appoint a leadership tribunal to determine the charges against Sir Michael.
On June 30, 2008, the PM's lawyers refiled their appeal matter in the Supreme Court to be heard that afternoon.
The appeal matter related to the refusal of the National Court to grant an order restraining the OC from investigating the PM on an alleged breach of the Leadership Code.
PM's lawyers filed a notice of appeal basically appealing the whole of the judgment of Derek Hartshorn in dismissing their notice of motion.
In the notice of appeal, they relied on seven grounds saying that in respect of each and every grounds, the National Court erred in the exercise of its discretion which if not overturned would result in the unlawful actions of an authority going unscrutinised by the court and causing serious injustice to the appellant.
The Supreme Court is yet to make a ruling of this matter.
Arthur Somare is also alleged to be in trouble with the law and was referred by the OC on February 28, 2006 to the Public Prosecutor for prosecution under the Leadership Code.
He was referred over allegation that he failed to give annual statements on time that he misapplied his district support grant (DSG) funds and allegedly failed to acquit these funds' expenditure.
The OC alleged that K250, 000 of DSG was allegedly deposited into Somare's electorate trust account held at the Australian and New Zealand Bank Limited, Waigani Branch in Port Moresby.
It is alleged that he then applied the funds in the form of unverifiable cash cheques to individuals; made cheque payment of various amounts for various activities; and made cheque withdrawals for which no details are available.
Despite Somare's assertion that he used for the purposes intended for under the relevant laws, the OC alleged that there appear to be cases where the MP has applied proceeds of the DSG to activities which the relevant guidelines specify as ineligible.
The OC has stated that other payments do not have quotations, receipts, etc to ascertain credibility and genuineness in their applications.
"It appears that the leader applied public funds contrary to the relevant guidelines that provide for, among others, the prudent application and acquittal of these funds," the OC has stated.
It is also alleged that Somare failed without reasonable excuse to provide the watch dog organisation on time his annual statements which details of his assets, income, gifts, business interests and dealings and debts and liabilities.
They are for the following periods: July 16 1998 to July 15 1999; July 15 1999 to July 15 2000; and July 16 2000 to July 16 2001.
The OC said Somare failed to submit his annual statements for the above periods when they were due acting contrary to the requirements of Section 4 of the Organic Law on the Duties and Responsibilities of Leadership."
Section 4 of the Organic Law on the Duties and Responsibilities of the Leadership requires every person who is subject to the Leadership Code to furnish the OC every year details of assets, income and other required information.
Namah said that he was merely asking the Supreme Court, Public Prosecutors and the Ombudsman Commission to perform their constitutional duties and roles speedily in the public interest.
"The constitutional office holders owe it to the nation and people to make an effort to decide in these cases in the national interest.
"It is not our intention to interfere with the work of these important constitutional offices, but expect them to do their job speedily," he concluded.
No comments:
Post a Comment