No referrals to amendments

The National Main Stories

By KARO JESSE
A LEADERSHIP tribunal inquiring into allegations of misconduct in office by Telefomin MP Solan Mirisim has been told it cannot make a determination from an amended allegation or reference as it is against the law.
This comes after Mirisim’s lawyer Greg Sheppard yesterday presented his final submission in regards to the remaining allegations levelled against Mirisim.
In the course of the tribunal, Mirisim had pleaded guilty to one allegation in relation to declaring false and misleading information in his annual statement for 2011/2012 and 2012/2013, while allegations 11, 12 and 13 were struck out after the public prosecutor indicated it had relied on wrong provisions.
The three allegations struck out were on the:

  • CORPORATE income tax for Motop Business Group Inc;
  • SALARY and wages tax for Motop Business Group Inc; and,
  • GOODS and service tax for Motop business group.

Sheppard through the final submissions, raised an issue in regards to the effects of the withdrawal of the three allegations and the tribunal’s jurisdiction to make a determination on amended allegations or reference.
The tribunal, chaired by Justice Les Gavara-Nanu, has set Nov 19 to hand down its decision.
Sheppard contended that from Section 27 (1) of the Organic Law on Duties and Responsibilities of a Leader (OLDRL) if the Ombudsman Commission (OC) was satisfied that a person investigated was guilty of misconduct, it would refer the matter together with a statement-of-reference for its opinion to the public prosecutor.
“In other words, the OC must firstly be satisfied that there is a prima facie case of misconduct in office against the leader before it makes the referral to the public prosecutor,” Sheppard said.
He said once the OC referred the matter to the public prosecutor, it referred it to a tribunal after intensely scrutinising the matter independently.
Sheppard said fact that the prosecution during a hearing abandoned the three allegations because they were flawed demonstrated a breach of its onerous duty imposed by Organic Law on Duties and Responsibilities of a Leader.
Lawyer David Kuvi, from the Public Prosecutor’s Office, maintained his stand that there were no amended references or allegations, but the same reference which was referred by OC despite the removal of the three allegations.
Sheppard, however, asserted that the OLDRL did not allow for an amended reference or amended matter to be referred to a tribunal to consider an amended reference.
“The OLDRL, it is submitted, does not allow the matter to be amended once a hearing is underway because of stringent process it has already in place,” he said.
“The tribunal herein would therefore be without jurisdiction to make a determination on what is effectively an amended reference.”
Sheppard said the reference referred to a tribunal on June 16 was not the same reference that Mirisim was tasked to answer as it was submitted that the fact the prosecution abandoned the three allegations conceding that they were flawed, at what was supposed to be a no-case hearing substantially changed the matter referred.
He further submitted that accept allegation one which Mirisim pleaded guilty to the all other charges should be dismissed.