I refer to the comments by the first legislative counsel, Mr Hudson
Ramatlap, and note with great concern that a person who is supposed to
protect the independence of Parliament legislative process is now
making outlandish comments in support of the contemptuous behaviour of
the Prime Minister.
His statement is not only misleading, but calculated to undermine the
seriousness of this matter.
This is not just another political scoring issue here it is an issue
of national importance.
The first misleading statement is his reference that Belden Namah and
Dr PukaTemu whose names are also on the Gazettal Notice.
Their names are not there.
I can pass a copy to him if he so pleases.
I know he has a copy of the notice but deliberately wanted to mention
This is contemptuous in itself as he is trying to water down the
seriousness of this case and the implications it has on the judiciary.
Secondly, Mr.Ramatlap as a lawyer knows that an appointment does not
take effect until it is gazetted.
It is trite law that a purported performance of duty by a minister
without having his appointment gazetted is null and void.
It can also be noted on the gazettal notice that Mr Pruaitch's
gazettal does not mention him as Finance and Treasury Minister to show
that he is a finance minister suspended on full pay, or to confirm
that this is just a republishing of the original Gazettal dated 13th
September 2007 as claimed by Mr Ramatlap.
Instead it is a new portfolio (State Minister assisting PM) and that
portfolio takes effect upon gazettal.
This is also deliberately stated by Mr Ramatlap to further confuse the
public of the serious nature of the matter.
Mr Pruaitch and Mr Ramatlap are alleging that the decision of the
Supreme Court does not stop the Prime Minister from appointing a
In other words, they are claiming that the Prime Minister had
unfettered powers to appoint a Minister, even in contempt of the
Supreme Court Order.
How sensible is that?
I have sought opinion on the Supreme Court decision and whilst the
decision does not state the details of being suspended on pay, which
is left to be an administrative matter, the decision in no uncertain
terms declares Mr Pruaitch automatically suspended as a leader.
Mr Pruaitch is not attending Parliament sitting or attending NEC
decisions which is the effect of him being suspended as a "leader".
It follows that Mr Pruaitch's justification of his new portfolio can
be said that he wants to be a minister without the name "leader"
because under the name leader, he is suspended.
Can the Judiciary see how important it is to protect its independence
or continue to subject itself from political interference?
I am concerned because we are setting double standards and weakening
the institutions that we look up to as our beacon of hope.
Where is the rule of law?
The Prime Minister is in clear contempt and should be cited for
contempt of court.
I reiterate that this is not the first time that the Prime Minister did this.
He is known for interfering and scandalising the judiciary.
We cannot allow that to happen.
I do not need to influence the judiciary as they are learned people
who know the legal implications of this issue.
What I am saying here is my concern as a national leader to protect
the independence of the judiciary.