Namah, lawyer misinterpreted context of ruling: Lawyer

THE Supreme Court was told by a lawyer that Vanimo-Green MP Belden Namah and his lawyer misapprehended the context of a Supreme Court ruling of May 29, regarding a case filed against the election of Prime Minster James Marape last May.
Nemo Yalo, representing Minister for Justice and Attorney-General Davis Steven on Friday, informed the court that the ruling on the latter date was regarding the competency of the application and not the issue of “standings” as perceived by Namah.
Namah was represented by Greg Sheppard and Philip Tabuchi, of Young and Williams, at that time.
This was argued in court during the hearing of a leave application filed by Namah to file a slip rule application as he had intended that the court had erred in its ruling which found him suspended from duties when he had filed the application against Marape’s election on March 30. Justice David Cannings dismissed the leave application after he upheld submissions by Yalo and Marape’s lawyer Abraham Serowa, of Jema Lawyers, arguing that the leave application failed to express the exact slip in the decision.
Instead, it raised new grounds.
Namah’s lawyer Mathew Tamutai argued that the court had failed to look into the status of the proceedings regarding a judicial review Namah had filed over the tribunal’s decision.
Tamutai explained that the status of the proceedings was adequate to control the court’s outcome.
The Supreme Court on May 29 found that when Namah stayed the decision of Leadership Tribunal on July 5, 2018, recommending for his dismissal from duties, the stay did not constitute to cover his suspension.