Supreme court rejects landowners’ application

By KARO JESSE
THE Supreme Court has rejected an application by owners of a piece of land subjected to logging to intervene in a case questioning the constitutionality of the Forestry Act (2007 Budget Amendment) 2006.
The Supreme Court reference concerning the Forestry Act was filed by landowners Arnold Alero, Alphonse Amlamo and Ali Yapi.
The application to intervene in the reference was filed by Alfred Kehala and Marcus Enep whose land are subject to logging.
They are concerned about the K8 per cubic meter imposed as log export development levy collected by the National Forest Service of Forest Authority and paid to the State.
The landowners asked the Supreme Court to declare, among other aspects, that either the Forestry (2007 Budget Amendment) Act 2006 in its entirety or section 121A of the act is unconstitutional and of no effect, as the act fails to comply with the requirement of section 38(1) and (2) of the Constitution.
Justice Derek Hartshorn, on Monday, ousted the landowners’ application to intervene and upheld submission by Solicitor-General Tauvasa Tanuvasa representing Attorney-General Dr Eric Kwa as first intervener in the reference.
Tanuvasa contended that, although the landowners submitted that they had pecuniary interest, this apparently was not sufficient to satisfy the substantial and real interest test.
Tanuvasa submitted that the substantive application was concerned with the constitutionality of the act and the applicants did not have a substantial interest in the subject.
Further, if they were permitted to intervene, the applicant would only be repeating the arguments of the substantive applicants.
Justice Hartshorn, considering the reasons provided by Tanuvasa, rejected the application and ordered the landowners to pay the State’s cost.