Mixed feeling over no-confidence vote

THE defeat of the vote of no confidence brought both great jubilations and disappointments.
Great jubilations for being allowed nine more months of freedom to continue doing what they believe no one else can do or ever did for the country in 40 years of independence.
And great disappointments because the recklessness being strongly decried nationwide in the last few months is being allowed to continue.
Yes, Peter O’Neill may have survived the vote of no confidence but the mere move itself has casted serious doubts about his fitness as a man of principle and integrity to be Prime Minister while serious allegations against him are still hanging over his head.
Morobe Governor Kelly Naru’s prepared speech may have played on some MPs’ conscience and achieved its design in aborting any last minute awakenings.
Naru stated “under our Constitution and the laws, no one can be held liable of an offence unless he is first charged, processed and found guilty or innocent according to the law”.
O’Neill has denied all the allegations, arguing that he has not been convicted of the alleged offences thus remain innocent until proven otherwise by the court.
But how can he be accorded his constitutional rights alluded to by the Morobe governor when he flatly refused to be interviewed by police in performing the first step (be interviewed to ascertain the criminality of the allegations to lay or not lay charges) in dispensing justice?
Naturally, the ensuing rest of the judicial process of being charged (or not), processed, trialed and dispensation of justice cannot be performed.
How could the Prime Minister claim to having not being charged when his refusal to be interviewed by police has effectively negated the entire legal process in the dispensation of justice?
Does that then make a mockery of our judicial system and the Constitution?
Can some legal eagle please clarify this for us grassroots people.

BT
New Ireland