Court: AG’s approval necessary for lawyer’s engagement

The Supreme Court has once again ruled that the heads of the Fraud and Anti-Corruption Directorate need the approval of the Attorney General in their legal representation.

This is while they are acting in their capacity as police officers.

A three-man Supreme Court bench handed down its decision today after lawyers representing the Prime Minster, the state, and Police Commissioner raised an objection on whether Matthew Damaru and Timothy Gitua are able to engage lawyers to act for them in the case without the approval of the Attorney General.

This is case SCA 7/2016. It is an appeal that originates from OS JR 485 of 2014, the judicial review into the PM’s arrest warrant issue.  

Lawyers for Prime Minister Peter O’Neill, the state, and Commissioner Gari Baki all objected to the appearance of lawyers representing Damaru and Gitua. This was when the appeal previously came for hearing before Justices Ambeng Kandakasi, Derek Hartshorn and Stephen Kassman.

They said the Attorney General’s approval is necessary as they are parties in the case, as police officers and servants of the state, concerning matters arising out of their employment.

They relied on the Supreme Court’s decision on Feb 24 this year in the Marape appeal (SC 87/2014) where Justices Hartshorn, Collin Makail and Don Sawong ruled that Messrs Damaru and Gitua did require approval from the Attorney General to engage private lawyers to act for them in the proceeding.

Lawyers for Damaru and Gitua submitted to the court that there is no issue of estoppel as the facts of this case is different to those in the prior decision involving the Marape appeal.

The issue of estoppel is a principle that stops a person from declaring something contrary to what has been implied in a previous action or by a previous determination.

The court in the present case also found that the capacities in which Damaru and Gitua are parties in this case are the same – as the director and deputy director of the Fraud and Anti-Corruption Directorate respectively.

Court found that the same issue now raised was previously decided on Feb 24.

Author: 
Sally Pokiton