|
By JOSHUA ARLO
SUPREME Court judge Justice Bernard Sakora yesterday accused Prime
Minister Sir Michael Somare of trying to “piggyback” on applications to
annul the Moti Inquiry report, which he was not a part of.
The judge’s strong criticism of the Prime Minister came as he dismissed
the applications by former chief secretary Joshua Kalinoe, PNGDF Chief
of Staff Capt Tom Urr and Col Vagi Oala to nullify the Moti Inquiry and
its final report.
Justice Sakora also compared the Moti case to the Watergate Scandal in
the United States, which led to the resignation of President Richard
Nixon in 1973, and suggested that cabinet members, who approved the Moti
inquiry but are suppressing its final report, should resign from office.
Dismissing the judicial review applications, Justice Sakora said there
was nothing on file to show that the Prime Minister could be part of
these proceedings.
He said application by the Prime Minister (OS 104/07) was withdrawn from
court last April and since the matter came before him in Aug 3, he could
not find any proper application by Sir Michael.
He said Sir Michael was “piggy back” riding on the applications of Capt
Urr, Col Oala and Mr Kalinoe to seek declaratory orders, and he did not
follow the proper process.
Justice Sakora said he was “bewildered” that the Prime Minister could
come to court and be part of this without filing a proper application,
describing it as “highly irregular”.
He said that the non-inclusion of the Moti report by plaintiffs’ lawyers
meant that there was ‘nothing to review’.
“There is nothing to review by operation of law,’ he said, adding that
the non-inclusion of the report was fatal to this case, despite his
repeated plea for them to produce it.
“I have question marks in my judgment about the Moti report,” he said,
and questioned what powers and principles of law gave right to a
minister to suppress such a document.
He said there could only be private reasons, and to protect “huge egos
of unlimited proportion”.
He said that he found and still finds it amazing that the Moti report
was being suppressed by plaintiffs’ lawyers, accusing them of having
“personal and private interests prevailing over public interest, and
even the courts”.
He said he found it odd that members of cabinet — the highest level of
authority — approved the establishment of the inquiry and appoint its
members, and then turn around and criticise it.
He said former minister of Defence Martin Aini was the scapegoat in a
‘blame game’ as he lost his job when it was certain that members of the
Defence force and the members of the Government consorted to the ‘flight
to freedom of fugitive from justice, Julian Moti’.
Justice Sakora likened this case to the “Watergate scandal’ which
happened in 1970’s that led to the resignation of President Nixon, and
suggested that any member of that decision making body who did not agree
with the decision, should resign from office.
He said for one to come to court to be heard, the proper process must be
followed, and not come to court and demand to be heard.
He described their applications as an abuse of process and dismissed it,
and ordered costs against the plaintiffs.
 
|
