Court to clarify MP’s constitutional issue

 THE Supreme Court is ready to interpret the constitutional issue regarding Vanimo-Green MP Belden Namah’s application on the legality of the Leadership Tribunal’s appointment by Chief Justice Sir Salamo Injia.

Namah’s lawyer Greg Shepherd and the respondents, including lawyers representing Public Prosecutor, Ombudsman Commission, Tribunal members, Sir Salamo and others who appeared before Acting Judge Danaja Koeget last Friday, have agreed with four questions to be contained in the reference book.

The Supreme Court, on a later date, will interpret the Section 169 (4) of the Constitution which Namah based his application on to review the tribunal’s appointment. That part of the constitution states that “where the chief justice is unable or unavailable to act the next senior judge could perform the duty of the chief justice”.

The tribunal was appointed by Sir Salamo who is a subject in one of the 15 allegations of official misconduct against Namah.

Shepherd, last month, had attempted to move a motion to review the appointment of the tribunal based on Section 169 (4) of the constitution but Koeget decided for it to be interpreted by the Supreme Court first before he could consider the application.

Koeget said the word “unable” was to be interpreted.

“The Chief Justice was available to make a decision to appoint the tribunal. But Shepherd is saying that Injia was unable to appoint the tribunal because of circumstances that are deemed.”