Attorney General Of Solomons Confirms Proceedings

Attorney General Of Solomons Confirms Proceedings

Attorney General Of Solomon Islands

MEDIA RELEASE

Attorney General Julian Moti QC confirms that there are now three pending judicial proceedings before the High Court which concern the legality and substance of the proposed motion for a resolution of no confidence in the Prime Minister.

The first case was filed against the Speaker and Honourable William Haomae MP in February this year by the Acting Attorney General. It sought judicial clarification of the doubts reigning in Solomon Islands since 1990 as a result of Chief Justice Gordon Ward’s ruling in Danny Philip v. Speaker of National Parliament. In the High Court, His Lordship ruled that Order 36(3) of the Standing Orders of the National Parliament prevented the reconsideration of a specific question which Parliament had already decided during the current or preceding two meetings of Parliament. When that decision was appealed, the Court of Appeal left the conclusive determination of that issue to “await another day.”

That doubt remains unresolved despite what happened in February when the Speaker ruled that Honourable Haomae MP’s notice of motion was invalid because it fell foul of the constitutional requirement of “at least seven clear days” prior notification. The Speaker’s ruling on the motion’s irregularity or invalidity might have concluded the dispute as a practical though not as a legal matter.

The second case, filed against the Speaker and Honourable Edward Huniehu MP last Monday, underlines the issue left unresolved by the Court of Appeal. It is a “live” issue and constitutionally significant in sustaining a vibrant yet stable parliamentary democracy in Solomon Islands.

Until it is overruled by our Court of Appeal, the High Court’s ruling in Danny Philip is binding law. The opportunity to settle perennial controversies about its true import and effect presented itself to me in the form of Honourable Huniehu MP’s much-publicized notice of motion.
After perusing its contents and knowing everything that the Speaker has been publicly saying and writing in relation to “the recent actions and decisions” of the Prime Minister which both the Honourable Member for East Are’Are and the Speaker regard as “not in the best interest of Solomon Islands”, I sought instructions to file proceedings which also require judicial scrutiny of the Speaker’s ruling on the admissibility of the notice of motion and question his neutrality in presiding over proceedings in which he might be perceived as a “judge in his own cause”.

I respect the Speaker’s constitutional right to hold and express his private views subject to the restrictions which our “supreme law” imposes on him as a “Leader”. My understanding of the traditional office and attributes of the Speaker as someone who rarely speaks on issues of public debate needs to be judicially corrected to reverse popular perceptions.

The third case filed by my Chambers on the instructions of the Governor General in mid-July dwell on two of the Prime Minister’s “recent actions and decisions” which both the Honourable Member for East Are’Are and the Speaker have publicly condemned as “not in the best interest of Solomon Islands”.

The respondents to that matter are the Public Service Commission, Judicial and Legal Service Commission and Police and Prisons Service Commission and it concerns the legality of His Excellency’s administration of oaths of office and allegiance to both the Commissioner of Police and the Attorney General.

Hopefully, that case will also clarify the usage of the term “Government” to which the Attorney General acts as “the principal legal adviser” under Section 42(1) of our Constitution. Helpfully, that will arrest the practice which has developed in my Chambers of farming out prized legal work to a few lawyers for reasons I simply cannot decipher and will not accept.

I must say I was amused to read in the Island Sun today that the Speaker “will defy” me when he has not even heard what I have to say. I was surprised though to learn that the Speaker has already decided to allow the motion to proceed without being persuaded by alternative legal reasoning supporting its objections on sound constitutional principles. I would be happy to indulge the Speaker with my opinion when called upon to do so under Section 42(4) of the Constitution.

Julian R Moti QC
Attorney General

August 8, 2007

© Scoop Media