I REFER to the article “Magistrate slams NHC over ejection” (Nov 9). While it may be understood that there is a shortage of housing for magistrates and their staff in the country, the outburst by the chief magistrate has put the independence and integrity of the judiciary into question.
Was it legal for the chief magistrate to direct magistrates and their support staff nationwide to not deal with any NHC cases?
Whatever happened to the judiciary being independent and impartial? Aren’t magistrates judicial officers who must be independent and impartial when presented with cases?
Magisterial service is not a private organisation that can choose its clients in terms of who it should serve. Magisterial service belongs to the people of Papua New Guinea, (NHC included) and although it claims that NHC has done wrong, why can’t this matter be resolved through other legal means?
Barring magistrates from hearing NHC cases send a wrong message and most importantly, question the independence of the judiciary in PNG.
The independence of magistrates is questioned because as judicial officers, they took judicial oath to serve without fear, favour or ill will.
What this action tells us is that the chief magistrate can tell magistrates not to deal with cases from certain people or organisations if the chief magistrate sees fit to do so.
It is surprising that this action has gone without comment from magistrates, Law Society and Ombudsman Commission.
This is clearly an abuse of power and should be looked into.
Please protect our courts from such abuse of powers.

Concerned
Via email