No corruption to warrant suspension, says tribunal

By JACOB POK
PRIME Minister Sir Michael Somare’s suspension from office was rejected by the tribunal judges on Monday because the tribunal was also of the view that there was no other act of corruption on the part of the PM apart from failing to submit his statement of returns to the Ombudsman Commission.
Sir Bruce Robertson, one of the tribunal judges, said while handing his “reserved” discretionary ruling on Tuesday on the issue regarding Sir Michael’s suspension.
The tribunal was issued the responsibility by Chief Justice Sir Salamo Injia to use its discretion to rule on the suspension of the prime minister.
The chief justice indicated, prior to the tribunal, that “for avoidance of doubt, pursuant to section 142(6) of the constitution subject to which section 28 of the Organic Law on duties and responsibilities of leadership is read, the question of suspension pending the investigation into the question of misconduct in office by the PM is to be determined by the tribunal”.
This effectively gave power to the tribunal bench to decide on Sir Michael’s suspension, to which the suspension bid was ultimately refused on Monday by two judges, chairman Roger Gyles and Sir Bruce while Sir Robin Auld reluctantly agreed.
The prosecutions, headed by Pondros Kaluwin, made submissions for Sir Michael to be suspended pending the duration of the tribunal while the prime minister’s legal team, headed by Ian Molloy, argued that Sir Michael remain as prime minister pending the tribunal’s outcome.
Sir Bruce, while handing his discretionary reasons, outlined that “the tribunal was not persuaded by the submissions delivered by the prosecution to suspend the PM”.
He agreed on the submissions by the PM’s defence team, keeping in mind that the prime minister’s suspension could affect the natural functions of the country.
“Although the subject on suspension was capable for argument, there was no other act of corruption by the PM apart from the allegations of failing to submit his statements of returns,” Sir Bruce said.
“Accordingly, and through the exercise of discretion by the tribunal, we have declined the suspension of the PM,” Sir Bruce said.
When the leadership tribunal returns this week or early next week, it will be for the tribunal members to rule on the issues of “liabilities” on whether or not the PM was liable to the charges.
It also gave the parties time to prepare submissions on penalty if Sir Michael was found guilty of the charges.