|
By JOSHUA ARLO
CONTINUED refusal by lawyers representing Prime Minister Sir Michael
Somare and others to produce a copy of the Moti inquiry report in the
National Court provoked a barrage of fiery response from Justice Bernard
Sakora yesterday.
But the judge decided not to lay contempt charges against the Prime
Minister or the other plaintiffs, a recourse he had threatened during
Tuesday’s hearing.
Lawyers told him they had difficulty getting a copy of the report, which
is in the custody of the Prime Minister.
“Why did you suppress the report? Was it State secret? State privilege?
Or the law of defamation?” he asked the lawyers.
“What is the public interest requiring suppression (of the report)?” he
asked the lawyers for Sir Michael, former chief secretary Joshua Kalinoe,
PNG Defence Force chief of staff Capt Tom Ur and Col Vagi Oala. These
plaintiffs are challenging the validity of the Defence Board of Inquiry
chaired by Justice Gibbs Salika, which prepared the report. They are
applying to annul the report, which implicates them in wrongdoings and
has recommended prosecution.
Justice Sakora also engaged in a fiery exchange with Kerenga Kua,
counsel for Sir Michael. At one point yesterday, Mr Kua asked Justice
Sakora to withdraw his comments which Mr Kua felt were personal in
nature.
Justice Sakora replied that Mr Kua was making submissions that provoked
these comments, and urged Mr Kua to assist him so he could understand
what his submission was about.
The judge said he was not making scandalous comments as he was asking Mr
Kua on points of law, but it seemed Mr Kua was being evasive.
He said Mr Kua and the other plaintiffs’ counsels had collected selected
bits and pieces of information and put it before the court and that was
not assisting him.
During submissions, Mr Kua argued that the former Defence minister
Martin Aini’s decision to appoint the tribunal based on an NEC decision
was ill-advised.
He said the authors of the report were not appointed properly and in
accordance with relevant laws and regulations of the Defence Force Act.
However, this led to an outburst from Justice Sakora, who said he had
trouble understanding that the minister would sign the NEC decision to
have the inquiry board established upon ill-advice.
Justice Sakora said ministers had the collective responsibility to
honour a cabinet decision as the minister (Aini) partook in the decision
to establish the board.
Mr Kua also submitted that according to an agreement by all counsels for
both parties that the report would not be required to be tendered as
evidence.
He said since the court was adamant for a copy of the report, the court
should get a copy from Justice Salika.
Justice Sakora quickly admonished him saying that since he and his
colleagues had instigated the application, they were supposed to provide
the court with all the relevant documents and files to assist the court
in determining judicial review.
A ruling whether to dismiss this application for judicial review will be
handed down on Tuesday.
 
 |
