Lawyers: Chief justice never erred

LAWYERS involved in the current leadership tribunal, looking in allegations of misconduct against Prime Minister Sir Michael Somare, have denied the leading headline in yesterday’s The National that the “chief justice had erred in law”.
They said in a media statement that the headline on the front-page of The National was wrong.
“It ought to be clarified in the interest of the public those named and, in particular, in the interest of upholding and protecting the office of the chief justice and the judiciary.”
The lawyers said publishing matters in the public domain, having the effect of scandalising and lowering the esteem in which judges and the judiciary were held by the public, was contemptuous of the judiciary and was an offence.
“Two connected issues arose during the tribunal hearing,” the statement read.
“The first was whether suspension was automatic or discretionary to the tribunal.
“The second issue was whether the prime minister should be suspended by the tribunal if it had the discretion to do so.”
The decision of the three-member tribunal was split two-to-one on the first question.
“Chairman Roger Gyles and Sir Bruce Robertson decided in effect that section 142(6) of the constitution intended to treat the prime minister differently to all other leaders. Therefore, the discretion was vested in the tribunal to decide the question.
“Sir Robin Auld took the view that the tribunal had no discretion. A leader was automatically suspended, among other things, in accordance with the case of Patrick Pruaitch.
“As is normally the case, the majority view prevailed and is binding to all.
“In this regard, the extra-judicial statement Chief Justice Sir Salamo Injia has made in the media on the point in the recent past that the tribunal was vested with the discretion was correct.
“The majority of the members of the tribunal agreed with that view.”
The statement said it was a mistake for the headline in the The National to say that the chief justice had “erred in law” – he was correct.
“On the second question (suspension), the tribunal members were unanimous on their decision not to suspend the prime minister pending the conclusion of the tribunal hearing.
“Even Sir Robin took the view that since the majority ruled that the tribunal was vested with the jurisdiction, he was bound by it and he had to decide on suspension separately.
“He, too, felt that suspension was inappropriate.
“This is the context in which the chief justice’s previous press statement ought to be seen. He never erred.”