PRIME Minister Sir Michael Somare will know by the end of today
whether he is guilty of the 25 misconduct charges against him under
the leadership tribunal which heard evidence last week, The National
reports.
His fate will be determined by the tribunal based on a decision on
liabilities that will be handed down by three eminent judges – Roger
Gyles, Sir Bruce Robertson and Sir Robin Auld.
The tribunal said in a media statement last Friday that its findings
would be handed down at 1.30pm today.
Sir Michael had been accused of breaching the leadership code by
failing to submit his financial earnings for 1994-97.
The tribunal statement read: "The leadership tribunal, enquiring into
the allegations of misconduct in office by Sir Michael Somare, PM,
will deliver its decision on liability at 1.30pm on Monday, March 21,
2011."
The 25 charges laid against Sir Michael, and his referral in October
2006 by then former chief ombudsman Ila Geno, were categorised into
three main groups:
* Failing without reasonable excuse to give annual statements to the
Ombudsman Commission – under which there were five separate instances;
* Failure to give annual statements, at least once in every period of
12 months: in which eight individual charges were cited; and
* Incomplete annual statements; for which, 12 individual charges were cited.
Before the tribunal rose for the day last Tuesday, after giving its
final reasons about why the three members each chose not to suspend
the prime minister while the tribunal was in progress, which were
based on submissions from both the prosecution and the defence
lawyers, tribunal chairman Gyles said: "Supposing we deliver our
decision on liabilities on, say Friday (March 18), then Monday or
Tuesday next week will be set for more evidence.
"That is, if we find any liabilities, you need to call evidence on that."
Liabilities are the alleged legally accountable responsibilities –
hence, the charges – which could be held against Sir Michael relating
to his annual returns for 1994 to 1997, which he had allegedly not
filed with the Ombudsman Commission, declaring his annual earnings.
And, the tribunal noted, that if the prime minister did fill his
annual returns, then, he did not do so and submit them to the OC, on
time; or that, if the forms were filled, then they were not filled out
fully.
Monday, March 21, 2011
Ruling on prime minister set for 1.30pm
Sunday, March 20, 2011
Prime minister in contempt of court again.
Bulolo MP
The Prime Minister caused the Publication of the National Ministers constituting the NEC and their respective Responsibilities in the Nation al Gazette on Thursday 3rd March 2011, National Gazette No. G57 of 2011.
In the publication, particularly Schedule 30 provides that Patrick Pruaitch as the Minister for State Assisting the Prime Minister.
This is in direct contempt of the Orders of the Supreme Court in the case of Pruaitch v Manekn [2010] PGSC 7;SCl052 (31 May 2010) where the Supreme Court declared that the leader was automatically suspended when the charges were served on the Tribunal.
The highest Court of the land constituting Kirriwom J, Gavan-Nanu and Davani JJ declared that the leader was suspended forthwith.
How could the PM then appoint him to be a minister of his cabinet?
The Tribunal is yet to hear the case against Mr. Pruaitch and as far as I could recall, there was no court order setting aside the Supreme Court Orders.
Until the tribunal finally determines the allegations and unless a five-man bench of the Supreme Court overturns the decision of the Supreme Court in the above case, the orders are still effective.
Any action in derogation of that decision is clearly contempt.
The appointment and publication in the National Gazette is a clear case for contempt on the face of court.
This is a clear disrespect of the court orders and so I urge the registrar of the National and Supreme Court or the Chief Justice to cite the Prime Minister Sir Michael Thomas Somare for contempt.
If the PM can act in contempt of the decision of the highest court on the land then what is there for this country?
This is not the first time the PM had interfered and defeated the course of justice.
In 1979, Nahau Rooney who was then the Minister for Justice was imprisoned for interfering with the judiciary citing her for contempt.
Sir Michael was the Prime Minister at that time and released her on license after she had served one day of her sentence which prompted the mass resignation of five judges including the Chief Justice.
This was the first ever constitutional crises only four years after Independence.
I do not know whether the same can be done.
If the judiciary is adamant to protect its independence and most importantly, its orders, I suggest the judges should resign.
If the PM cannot obey the orders, what good is there for the Judiciary to hold on?
Judiciary is seen as the last beacon of hope.
People do not want to accept the decisions of the National Parliament and the executive government and are always going to Court and when such a decision is handed down, they accept it.
However, with such disrespect at the highest, it destroys everything that the judiciary holds on.
The damages this veteran MP and PM has done so far is far too great
Major breakthrough in fight against potato disease
From MALUM NALU in Tambul
NARI, with support from Australian Centre for Integrated Agricultural Research (ACIAR), has developed new PLB-resistant clones, which were showcased at its field day at the high altitude highlands regional centre at Tambul, Western Highlands, yesterday (Saturday (March 19).
Farmers, visitors and NARI council members were able to see first-hand the new clones, which will be officially released at NARI's annual agricultural innovations show at Bubia outside Lae in May.
The disease – caused by a fungal agent called Pythorthora infastans - remains a major concern for potato farmers in PNG, as it is easily transported by wind under moist and humid conditions, especially so in the highlands where it can rapidly multiply and spread over long distances in short times.
It has, to an extent, been controlled by expensive chemical fungicides and integrated disease management (IDM) systems.
NARI research has identified the behavior and type of PLB present in PNG, identified suitable chemical fungicides for PNG, and identified the PLB-resistant clones.
NARI director-general Dr Raghunath Ghodake told farmers, visitors and council members – who had their meeting in Tambul last Friday – that these outcomes would help PNG farmers to successfully grow potato again for cash income as well as food security.
"We now have three to four varieties of potato which are tolerant (to PLB)," he said.
"These will be released in May (at NARI's agricultural innovations show).
"These can be grown here at Tambul and people throughout PNG will benefit.
"Other stakeholders like Fresh Produce Development Agency (FPDA), will also benefit from our research, and will provide seeds to farmers as well as extension services."
Apart from the work of NARI and FPDA in getting PNG's potato industry back on a firm foothold, an exciting independent potato project in Lagaip-Porgera, Enga province – spearheaded by local MP Philip Kikala – was also showcased at the field day.
The project, led by former NARI scientist Humphrey Saese, is aimed at building capacity for high health seeds and sustainable potato production in Lagaip-Porgera and involves construction of three screen houses for producing mini-tubers.
"We are building three screen houses to take in 12,000 plantlets," Saese said in Tambul.
"That capacity will produce about four tones of mini-tubers."
Saese said he expected about 50 tonnes of seed production by June this year in Lagaip-Porgera from the work they had already done, including training and extension programmes, as well as introducing PLB-resistant lines to farmers.
Friday, March 18, 2011
‘Tribunal acted beyond powers’
THE prime minister's tribunal is exercising powers that it does not have and that decisions made by it could be voided, a prominent lawyer said in Port Moresby yesterday, The National reports.
Constitutional lawyer, ambassador Peter Donigi, said the tribunal had been asked to interpret and apply a constitutional law, which is the exclusive preserve of the Supreme Court and of no lesser court, including tribunals.
As section 142 (6) of the constitution, which has never been tested, is being interpreted on the question of suspension of Prime Minister Sir Michael Somare, Donigi said that job was rightly vested in the Supreme Court under section 18 of the constitution.
A member of the tribunal, Sir Robin Auld, has already alluded to the tribunal being forced to act beyond its powers when it was asked to decide whether or not to suspend the prime minister.
Donigi said the matter could be rectified if the Ombudsman Commission appealed any decision or made a constitutional reference to the Supreme Court.
That very issue will come to the fore when the tribunal hands down its decision at 1.30pm on Monday (see lead story).
Donigi was especially critical of the counsel in the tribunal who had failed so far to draw the attention of members of the tribunal to the existence of section 18(1) and section 18(2) of the constitution.
Those provisions provided plainly that, in the event a question of interpreting or applying the constitution arises in a lower court or a tribunal, that question must be referred to the Supreme Court.
It alone was vested with the powers to interpret the constitution, he said.
In a statement, Donigi said that the chief justice did not err in law and neither was the tribunal guilty in making a decision not to suspend the PM.
He said: "However, in my view both counsel for the prosecution and that of the prime minister had erred substantially in their respective duty as officers of the court on a matter of prime constitutional importance to this nation," Donigi said.
"They have failed to draw the attention of the members of the tribunal to the existence of section 18(1) and 18(2) of the constitution.
"It would appear to me that a question of constitutional question has arisen in the matter of interpretation and application of section 142(6) of the constitution because this is the first time in the history of this country that this question has arisen.
"There are, therefore, no precedents for the tribunal to follow.
"The tribunal, therefore, is duty-bound and has no option but to find facts and refer the question to the Supreme Court for its opinion on whether the prime minister should be suspended.
"If one is to read the constitutional planning committee report, one will find that it was very explicit about the prime minister being one among equals.
"The only power that he exercises, which no one else has, is the power to appoint ministers and to remove them from office.
"We have had a travesty of justice by failure of the lawyers to perform their duty to up hold the rule of law in this nation.
"Unfortunately, the laws that we have adopted from England are not all together clear on the definition of the term 'may' as is used in section 142(6) of the constitution.
"All precedents say that the word 'may' can be interpreted as obligatory in some cases and, in other cases, as discretionary depending on the circumstances of each particular case.
"So, it would seem to me that the question of its interpretation and application is a matter for the Supreme Court to decide and not the tribunal.
"The tribunal has, therefore, erred in exercising powers it does not have under our constitution. In law, it can be said that the tribunal had acted beyond its powers by virtue of section 18 of the constitution and its ruling that the prime minister stays in office, therefore, is voidable.
"These are matters of law that could be rectified by an appropriate appeal or by a constitutional reference by the Ombudsman Commission."
Monday D-Day for prime minister
THE leadership tribunal enquiring into misconduct allegations against Prime Minister Sir Michael Somare is expected to hand down its decision on liability at 1.30pm on Monday or thereafter, chairman Roger Gyles' office said yesterday,The National reports.
The tribunal, enquiring for the first time into misconduct charges into a reigning prime minister, took four days to hear evidence.
It involved judges from three common law countries (United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand) who were given the unprecedented task of deciding whether or not to suspend Sir Michael while the tribunal was in progress.
The tribunal of eminent judges Gyles, Sir Bruce Robertson and Sir Robin Auld decided on Monday to not suspend him.
The tribunal was tasked to enquire into 25 charges relating to Sir Michael's annual returns from 1994 to 1997.
In the event that the tribunal finds shortcomings against Sir Michael, the question of penalty is already provided for under the law.
Under the Organic Law on Duties and Responsibilities of Leadership, if the tribunal finds the leader liable (or guilty) of the misconduct charges, "it shall recommend to the appropriate authority that:
lHe (the leader) be dismissed from office or position; or
lAs permitted: "firstly, that the penalties (under the Leadership Code [Alternative Penalties] Act 1976) that may be recommended and imposed under and for the purposes of section 28 (1A) of the constitution and section 27(5)(b) of the Organic Law on Duties and Responsibilities of Leadership are that the person found guilty of misconduct in office are:
a)Be fined a amount fixed by the tribunal, not exceeding K1,000;
b)Be ordered by the appropriate authority to enter into his recognisance in a reasonable amount, not exceeding K500, fixed by the tribunal that he will comply with division III.2 (leadership code) of the constitution and with the Organic Law during a period fixed by the tribunal, not exceeding 12 months from the date of the announcement, unders ection 27(6) of he Organic Law, of the decision of the tribunal;
c)Be suspended, without pay, from office or position from a period not exceeding three months from the date of commencement of the suspension; or
d)Be reprimanded."
Thursday, March 17, 2011
Highlands Pacific Ltd: US$10m profit for 2010
HIGHLANDS Pacific Ltd, operator of the Frieda copper/gold project, posted a net profit of US$10.3 million last year, The National reports.
The figure was considered a significant increase from the previous year’s only US$1.1 million.
However, the company’s cash reserves dropped to US$21 million last year from the previous year’s US$24 million.
The key feature in last year’s performance was the gain of US$18 million on the Frieda project, which continued to make significant progress.
Last November, the project moved to the feasibility study stage and last month, the resource inventory increased substantially.
The amount carried in the accounts now reflected the full book value expended by
Another contribution was foreign exchange gain of US$1.2 million due to the appreciation in the Australian dollar against the
The company holds approximately half of its reserves in Australian currency and these are re-valued to US dollars for reporting purposes.
The exploration, evaluation and development expenditure of US$4.3 million provided for expenditure on the
HPL managing director John Gooding said 2010 had been an excellent year with respect to the Frieda project and the exploration programme at
He said Frieda had made significant progress last year under the management of Xstrata and still had a lot more potential in terms of resource inventory.
“
“Our
Huli of a show
 |
| The Huli Duna cultural group from PNG was the best, attracting the young and old, during the Kundu music at the World Music Festival in Adelaide, Australia, last weekend. |
Chairman Simon Bole said, with the strict restrictions, the group was denied performance on Friday and Saturday but with the intervention by organisers, the Australian government allowed the groups’ traditional gear.
Adelaide media stated in its reports that the festival has sold out a record 334,000 tickets over the weekend fest and the Huli group was the first from PNG to perform.