State loses bid

Source: The National,Tuesday 03rd April 2012 By JACOB POK THE Supreme Court has thrown out a bid by the government to reopen last December’s constitutional case which had declared Sir Michael Somare as prime minister. The application by Attorney-General and Justice Minister Dr Allan Marat was described by Justice Nicholas Kirriwom, a member of the five-man bench, as a “delay tactic”. But the court is yet to decide on whether Chief Justice Sir Salamo Injia and Kirriwom should step aside amid allegations of bias against the government. The bench comprised Sir Salamo, his deputy Gibbs Salika, Bernard Sakora, Les Gavera-Nanu and Kirriwom. It was supposed to be the first day of hearings into the legality of parliamentary decisions since the government of Peter O’Neill took office. But Marat’s lawyer Tiffany Twivey filed three new applications, including the one to have the Dec 12 case reheard. The other two relate to whether Sir Salamo and Kirriwom should remain on the bench. Twivey filed the applications last Thursday and had served copies to all parties involved in the proceedings. She told the court the slip rule application to revisit the Dec 12 case should be heard and determined first as it raised a series of issues relating to the current references. Sir Salamo told Twivey that such application would require the same bench and parties from last year that had been involved in the proceeding and it would require more time. He said the court was prepared to proceed with the two references which were made returnable for hearing and not new applications. “The procedural aspect of the matters should be considered and things must be done properly because such applications required extensive time and effort for parties to prepare and get instructions from their clients properly before the matter proceeds,” Sir Salamo said. Sakora told Twivey that the application was filed late as it was done four months after the Dec 12 decision. Kirriwom told Twivey that there was no need to revisit the previous case when the current reference stemmed from that case. “Your client did not agree with the decision of SCR 3 (Supreme Court reference) of 2011. “That is why these two current references have been filed,” Kirriwom said. He described the application as a “delay tactic”. Sir Michael’s lawyer Duncan Kerr and the lawyer representing the East Sepik provincial executive council, Ian Molloy, opposed the application. After a brief adjournment, the judges unanimously rejected the slip rule application.