Judiciary made a toothless tiger

IT is now a law and will remain that way until parliament amends or changes its action.
One thing is for certain; the country’s judiciary is no longer a sacred animal and is subject to the same statutes and laws which they dispense on a daily basis. In the interests of promoting the integrity and impartiality of our legal system as the government claims, a bill was passed in Wednesday’s seating.
Named the Judicial Conduct Bill, the O’Neill government pushed through essentially what are new rules designed to keep judges from overstepping their bounds or straying into the realm of politics. And they did it with relative ease as MPs voted 63-7 thrice in favour of tightening the parameters in which judges function.
This means parliament now has the power to refer a judge who they consider compromised or acting in a way incongruent to the interests of the nation, to the governor-general who then appoints a tribunal to investigate the judge.
The bill’s passing was summarily decried by observers including the opposition, the churches, non-governmental organisations and other groups in the public domain who were concerned that this would further muzzle what is in reality the nation’s highest watchdog.
Opposition leader Dame Carol Kidu voiced her dismay and apprehension that parliament could nonchalantly muscle through a bill that has the potential to create an inordinately powerful arm of government by stripping the courts of their freedom to act without fear or favour.
“To bring judges under the scrutiny of parliament and NEC when they are already under the scrutiny of the Ombudsman Commission will directly compromise the separation of powers as enshrined in our Constitution,” Dame Carol said.
The judiciary is our last line of defence against an autocratic style of leadership. The nine rules that O’Neill has succeeded in instilling are there explicitly to put judges, magistrates and other interpreters of our laws on a leash – a short one.
This is unprecedented.
The very nature of this bill undermines the judicial arm of government and threatens the independence of that office.
Furthermore a fettered judiciary will inevitably create an imbalance in the three arms of government.
Parliament is fast becoming the singular driving force to this extent and its behaviour is akin to that of a ravenous beast devouring all that stands before it.
The fathers of the constitution, including Sir Michael Somare himself, president of the Autonomous Region of Bougainville John Momis and Sir Julius Chan, would be looking on with alarm as PNG’s Constitution lurches from one self-serving act to another by a parliament that is not wholly cognisant of its actions.
As for the other writers of and contributors to the framing our Constitution who have since passed on, one can only envision them turning in their graves at the government’s latest intransigence.
The danger now is that this bill and its implications will have a flow-on effect on everything the government says and does and how the various departments and public servants operate.
We cannot call PNG a truly democratic state when the powers that be, in this case the O’Neill government, are left to make, repeal, and remodel the rule book to ultimately suit themselves.
This is unfortunately the first step down the road to a state where there are no checks and balances and all the power is centred on parliament. We risk making the judiciary impotent and thereby giving free reign to all manner of individuals and their agendas.
From there we are then but a stone’s throw from creating the condition for a despotic regime to thrive.
An interesting observation by Deputy Prime Minister Belden Namah was that the Constitution needed to be “tested”.
He was referring to the relevance of a document which is only 37-year-old but which according to him cannot fully cater for the changing circumstances of government.
He is right in so far as the Constitution is a living document subject to change, modification and alterations.
But the changes parliament has made will do more harm than good.
We can only hope that the next set of people’s representatives see it fit to give back to the judiciary the respect and reverence it deserves.