Supreme court clarifies authority of Public Solicitor

By TREVOR WAHUNE
THE Waigani Supreme Court has ruled that the Public Services Commission (PSC) has no jurisdiction to review any decision of the public solicitor, including any of his officers or employees.
A five-men Supreme Court bench consisting of Chief Justice Sir Gibbs Salika, his deputy Ambeng Kandakasi and judges Nicholas Kirriwom, David Cannings, and Joseph Yagi, made the decision on Wednesday in response to a special reference filed by Public Solicitor Leslie Mamu that questioned whether the PSC had the jurisdiction under section 191 of the constitution to review personal decisions by the public solicitor that were not sufficiently connected to the commission.
Mamu filed the reference in July last year after the commission cancelled a decision he made on April 28, 2017 to dismiss a senior legal officer John Unido.
Unido was employed with the public solicitors Lae branch in Morobe.
Prior to being dismissed, Unido was charged and suspended for allegations of soliciting legal fees and abusing his position.
Unido on Aug 4, 2017 filed an application for the commission to review Mamu’s decision for his dismissal.
The commission after the review wrote to Mamu, in a letter dated June 22, 2018 that withdrew Mamu’s decision and directed him to reinstate Unido to his previous position and pay all lost salaries and entitlements.
Mamu, in the reference, asked the court to clarify the constitutions sections 191 (Functions of the commission), section 177 (Functions of the public prosecutor and the public solicitor), section 188 (establishment of the state services) and section 99 (structure of the government) of the constitution in relation to the issue raised. Justice David Cannings, who made the ruling on behalf of the bench, held that the office of the public solicitor, its officers and employees were not part of the national public service, and that personal decisions of the public solicitor were not connected to public service.
“The office of the public solicitor has a special constitutional status.”
The PSC, as the only intervener in the reference, submitted that it had been reviewing personal decisions of the public solicitor without challenge or resistance, and that no reason had been given for the change in attitude. However, Justice Cannings said the court could not differentiate that the intention of the constitutional planning committee was that the PSC would provide an avenue to review personal decisions affecting all public servants under the laws Mamu had questioned.
“Even if that were the intention, the words of the constitution are so clear that such an intention has been overridden, and the fact that the Public Service Commission has been reviewing personal decisions of the public solicitor for many years without challenge or resistance is of no consequence.”