Amet is Madang Governor

By JOSHUA ARLO

A SUPREME COURT has confirmed the former Chief Justice Sir Arnold Amet as duly elected Governor of Madang Province.
This follows its decision last Friday to quash the September 2008 voiding of his 2007 general elections win by the National Court.
Sir Arnold, who was not in court to hear the decision, was ousted from public office on allegations of undue influence and illegal practices in relation to derogatory remarks made by himself, Prime Minister Sir Michael Somare and a Nick Mare during campaign period against another candidate, and former politician, Peter Yama.
However before a packed courtroom, the high court decided unanimously that these derogatory remarks which said Mr Yama was a highlander and if in power would allow for highlanders to take over Madang; that he was a thief; and had more than one wife; could not sustain Mr Yama’s petition. The court said there was no proof that Sir Arnold gave authority for Mare and Sir Michael to make these comments while in his presence, and accepted Sir Arnold’s contention that his comments on polygamous marriage was in light of his Christian belief.
“The grounds of Mr Yama were incompetent to go for trial and the words uttered do not amount to undue influence. We uphold the review application and the orders of September 11, 2008 by the National Court are quashed and the petition is dismissed,” head judge, Deputy Chief Justice Gibbs Salika said last Friday. He said the National Court judge erred in his ruling because he did not adequately address whether the statements made were untrue or a threat to voters. The trial judge was not precise in his conclusions whether the pleadings raised by Mr Yama sufficiently complied with requirements of section 208 of the Organic Law; therefore incompetent, and evidence adduced at trial did not establish the essential elements of undue influence and illegal proactice and ruling was an error.
The court said issues raised in this review concerned procedural compliance with a provisions of the Organic law and Mr Yama did not plead sufficiently facts supporting undue influence within meaning of section 102(b) of CCA and illegal practice within meaning of section 215 (3)(a) of Organic Law that states an election can be voided if this statement is proved to be ‘fraud’ or false. Mr Yama took the decision calmly, and outside the courtroom told supporters and the media while he accepted and respected the decision of the court, he was frightened of the consequences that may arise from how this decision is interpreted.

Post Courier July 12 2010

Lawyer: House can fix dent in OLIPPAC

National Newspaper below reports that true democracy has been restored but I doubt it. Politicians are now free to join any political parties they want but the bottom line is that we are still dealing with the same corrupt leaders. Additionally, we are still dealing with the same system.
It will really require a complete change of system and people in-order for any changes to take place in this country. The same recycled leaders will be in government. There is no immediate change that I see but we need to invest in getting young leaders with new ideas and vision for this country.

Source:

By JULIA DAIA BORE

WEDNESDAY’S Sup-reme Court decision on the Organic Law on the Integrity of Political Parties and Candidates (OLIPPAC) was hailed by its referrer, Dr Bob Danaya, as “justice being done at last” for the people of PNG.
Danaya and counsel Loani Henao, however, said the decision had left a “dent” in the OLIPPAC.
Henao said: “The major parts of the OLIPPAC that we challenged in court have been declared unconstitutional, but the rest remained intact.
“The question of whether what remains of the OLIPPAC would hold the law together is something for Parliament and the registrar of political parties to consider,” he told reporters after the court decision.
“In our view, the OLIPPAC had been severely dented. And, so, necessary amendments are needed to put together a complete OLIPPAC.”
Henao said while the intention of the OLIPPAC was to bring stability to government, such should not happen “at the expense of freedom of choice, freedom of expression and freedom of exercising conscience”.
“Do it properly; you can still do it within the framework of the Constitution.
“Do not abuse and do not take away the rights of the people which are expressed by their representatives.”
Thanking his legal team for convincing the Supreme Court to rule in their favour, Danaya said: “I can tell Members of Parliament that from this hour on, you are free to resign from a political party – if you wish to – and join another party or form another party.
“MPs now have that freedom; and, the important thing is, from here onwards, we must ensure there is good governance in Parliament and throughout PNG.”
Henao said the fears of a dictatorship were gone.
“That has been removed.
“True democracy has returned.
“The Supreme Court decision was very important. It was, hopefully, a lesson to the legislators that the enshrined freedoms in the Constitution must not be tempered or interfered with.
“These freedoms are put there so that they will allow the constituencies and the grassroots people of this country to exercise their freedom of choice and their freedom of expressions through their elected MPs.
“That should never, ever have been taken away in the first place.”

National Newspaper July 9 2010

Integrity law thrown out

Ruling based on five central issues:
1. MPs’ democratic rights to resign from their political parties;
2. MPs’ rights or choices to vote for a prime minister;
3. MPs’ rights to remove a prime minister in a vote of no-confidence;
4. MPs’ choices when voting on the national budget; and
5. MPs’ rights to cast their votes to enact or repeal a constitutional law.

THE law that has regulated the conduct of Members of Parliament has been thrown out, prompting speculations moves were being made to overthrow Prime Minister Sir Michael Somare.
In a unanimous ruling, the Supreme Court yesterday declared unconstitutional parts of the Organic Law on the Integrity of Political Parties and Candidates (OLIPPAC) that place restrictions on MPs when they vote for the prime minister, the budget, any constitutional laws, and whether they want to remain within a political party or change allegiance. The five-judge bench, chaired by Chief Justice Sir Salamo Injia, upheld all the 12 questions raised by Western Governor Dr Bob Danaya, whose provincial government filed the challenge in court.
While this decision effectively ruled those particular sections raised by Danaya as null and void; every other section of the OLIPPAC remained intact, the court said.
Sir Salamo, who read out the decision, said the bench held that “any Organic Law relating to section(s) 50 Rights of the Constitution must be regulated and not restrict or prohibit” MPs of their democratic rights, as had been done by the OLIPPAC.
Sir Salamo said their ruling concentrated on five central issues, relating to MPs’ democratic rights of movements from political parties and their rights or choices to vote in parliamentary decision relating to:
*The retracting of MPs from one political party to another – at will – in the best interest of their constituencies;
*The voting of a prime minister;
*Voting on the national budget; and
*Casting their votes to the enacting of a law or repealing of a constitutional law.
He said the restrictions imposed on Members of Parliament were “unheard of in any democratic countries within the Commonwealth”.
In its 96-page decision handed down yesterday morning, the five-judge bench comprising Sir Salamo, his deputy Gibbs Salika and justices Bernard Sakora, Nicholas Kirriwom and Les Gavara-Nanu stated that “the Fly River provincial government filed a special reference under section 19 of the Constitution seeking the Supreme Court’s opinion on the interpretation and application of various provisions of the Constitution and the OLIPPAC.
Provisions rendered invalid by the court are as follows:
nConstitution, ss12 (4) and 114, only to the extent that they authorise an Organic Law to restrict and prohibit the exercise of a Member of Parliament’s right under s50(1)(e) of the Constitution; and
nOLIPPAC, ss 65, 66, 67, 70 (3), 72 (2), 73 (1) (a) & (2).
Yesterday’s decision, in effect, meant that should a vote of no-confidence in the government is tabled, all MPs are at liberty to move to whichever side of the Parliament they wish to vote with.
They are no longer prohibited to stick to the party they are registered with. They can change political parties at will; they can vote on free will at enactments or repeals of enacted policies or vote on budgets.
“Not being able to do so is a thing of the past,” Loani Henao, lawyer for Danaya and the Fly River government, said soon after the decision.
Following the decision, the opposition issued a statement calling on MPs to join them to topple the prime minister.
Sources told The National talks were underway with different factions of the government and the opposition to remove Sir Michael and form a new government.
“They (talks) have been happening. They would intensify with the decision out now,” a source in Waigani said.
The source said the prime minister was also meeting with key figures of his government to ponder their next move.

Source:

By JULIA DAIA BORE

National Newspaper July 8 2010