Jurist attributes govt’s actions to court decisions

THE Papua New Guinea government is circumventing the Constitution and preventing the judiciary from exercising its jurisdiction, an international jurist said in Australia yesterday.
Glen McGowan, chairman of the Victorian chamber of the International Commission of Jurists, said the government led by Peter O’Neill was seeking to operate outside the constitutional framework because it was unhappy with court decisions.
“This is the whole reason for the doctrine of separation of powers to ensure courts are not cowered by governments who litigate before them,” he said in an interview with Radio Australia.
“Parliament’s taken over disciplining judges. It’s unheard of in a
democracy.”
McGowan said having hastily passed the controversial Judicial Conduct Act, the PNG parliament moved on Wednesday to nullify the Supreme Court’s stri­king down of the parliament suspension order of Chief Justice Sir Salamo Injia and Justice Nicholas Kirriwom.
In addition, he said they had acted to prevent the court from exercising its jurisdiction in its current referral case to stay the Judicial Conduct Act.
“I’ve got to say this has been a most egregious breach by the government of the doctrine of separation of powers, which is the principle that the judiciary is guaranteed independence from interference from government and parliament,” he said.
“This crisis has gone on long enough. There should be an election to clear it up and Prime Minister O’Neill should stop bashing and intimidating the judiciary just because he disagrees with them.”
McGowan said it did not matter if the PNG judges were biased.
What was important was to have independent judges who could stand up to government if required, he said.
“I’m not aware of any other jurisdiction where criminal penalties apply specifically to judges,” he added.
“In the PNG Constitution there’s provision for removal of judges – in sections 178 to 180 – on grounds of inability to perform or misbehaviour or misconduct in office for breach of the leadership code, and that has its own enforcement mechanisms.
“And if a referral of such a removal question is made, then such a judge can be suspended under section 182 pending the outcome of a report about it.”
McGowan said O’Neill had chosen not to use these mechanisms but had instead opted to “wave a very big stick, threatening to take away their pensions, throw them in jail”.
The amendment to the Judicial Conduct
Act made it a criminal offence for jud­ges to ignore suspensions by parliament.
If convicted they can face a prison term of up to seven years.