| Home > South Pacific & Oceania >> Papua New Guinea | |
PNG votes for power to oust judges
Sydney Morning Herald - March 21, 2012
While the O'Neill government has argued that the Judicial Conduct Bill is required to ensure that judges act fairly and appropriately, the leader of the fledgling two-member opposition, Dame Carol Kidu, condemned it as a "disgraceful and blatant attack on the fundamental principles of our constitutional democracy".
"To bring judges under the scrutiny of Parliament and the (National Executive Council) when they are already under the scrutiny of the Ombudsman Commission will directly compromise the separation of powers," Dame Carol said.
"It is typical knee-jerk legislation that has resulted from the incumbent government's desire to remove certain individuals from the bench."
The National newspaper editoralised strongly but unsuccessfully against the Bill, arguing it would "silence the greatest and proudest pillar of democracy in PNG".
A former speaker, Sir Barry Holloway, said he feared the vote would further inflame tensions between parliament and the judiciary. While there were severe problems within the courts, he said, in particular slow progress on cases, the bill was a crude mechanism which did not provide the resources to address those concerns.
While many people welcomed the O'Neill government last August "because corruption was eroding everything", its ongoing battle with the judiciary had now "cost it a lot of the public goodwill it enjoyed", Sir Barry said.
At the epicentre of the tensions between the government and the judges is the ruling last December by the Supreme Court that the process which removed former prime minister Sir Michael Somare from office was unconstitutional.
Before that ruling the O'Neill government tried repeatedly to have Chief Justice Sir Salamo Injia taken off the case, and has twice since ordered him to step down, only to be overruled by the courts.
Two weeks ago police arrested Sir Salamo on allegations of misappropriating funds from the estate of a deceased judge, but the National Court later put a permanent stay on the case, declaring the police investigation an abuse of process.
The bill, first flagged on Tuesday, was passed 63 votes to 7 yesterday, with many members of the 109-member parliament – which is limping toward a scheduled national election in June – absent.
It creates a tribunal to investigate judges which has the power to "make due inquiry into any matter referred to it without regard to legal formalities or the rules of evidence".
It is backdated to November1, 2011, which coincides with the period when Sir Salamo was considering the matter of the O'Neill government's legitimacy.
It was introduced to the parliament a day after controversial Deputy Prime Minister Belden Namah paid for a full-page statement in The National alleging "judicial corruption" and calling on three senior judges, including Sir Salamo, to resign.
In its editorial yesterday, the same newspaper condemned the bill, questioning its constitutional standing and saying it could "be used to strike out the current court proceedings questioning the legitimacy of the government", and opened the possibility of "all manner of ills which will legitimise corruption".
Constitutional experts told The Age that the Bill posed such major changes that it should have been put forward as a constitutional change – which requires a three-month process.
One veteran political watcher, who asked not to be named, said: "This power grab is breathtaking in its breadth, and... it allows Parliament to order that a tribunal to be set up on a judge for any issue which the MPs consider to be biased. Every party to every case perceives bias; not just but especially in PNG.
"How can the judges rule on the constitutionality of this measure, because they would already be seen to have an interest in the outcome. Catch 22?"
See also:
 |