Supreme Court

Application for Namah’s arrest before court

The application was filed on 16 March by Twivey lawyers, who represent Prime Minister Peter O’Neill.

It stems from the contempt motions the PM filed against five members of the Opposition; Kerenga Kua, Patrick Pruaitch, Sir Mekere Morauta, Bryan Kramer and Belden Namah.

Namah is said to have been evading personal serve of the contempt motion that the Prime Minister filed against him.

It is a requirement to effect personal service on alleged contemnors. Substitute service in the daily newspapers is also available in events personal service cannot be effected.  

Reference on death penalty filed

Following the passage of the death penalty by parliament in 2013, the criminal justice system has imposed the penalty on serious criminal offences.

However, the sentence imposed by the courts in various serious criminal cases have not been carried out because of the procedures involved in executing the death penalty.

Tentative dates for MPs’ contempt case

The trial will see Bryan Kramer, Sir Mekere Morauta, Patrick Pruaitch and Kerenga Kua answer to allegations of contempt that are being raised by Prime Minister Peter O’Neill regarding issues that were before the courts.

Twivey Lawyers today informed the Supreme Court there are seven distinct allegations leveled against each MP.

Only Vanimo-Green MP, Belden Namah, is yet to be served the contempt motion.

Man mentally unstable after consuming ‘ginger’

This follows his successful appeal against that sentence term.

A three-judge Supreme Court quashed the life sentence because they were of the view the trial judge made some errors.

It found that the National Court did not give enough regard to mitigating factors such as his early plea, absences of planning and Tauba Laiam’s contention that his mind was affected after his father-in-law gave him ‘ginger’.

The Supreme Court today ordered a fresh warrant of commitment to reflect the 30-year sentence.

Potape’s leave application successful

The Supreme Court this afternoon granted him leave to proceed with the review of the National Court decision that dismissed his election petition.

The petition was dismissed on grounds of competency.

He was challenging Philip Undialu’s win as the Hela Governor.

Chief Justice Sir Salamo Injia granted the leave on grounds that there are very serious allegations in the case that only a proper trial will need to address.

(Loop file pic)

EC powers questioned

The reference looks at what kind of powers the Electoral Commissioner has.

Filed by the Ombudsman Commission in July last year, the Supreme Court wants the reference to be heard quickly and has issued directions to the commission to comply with before February 14.

Chief Justice Sir Salamo Injia today endorsed draft index to the reference books and proposed answers to the reference questions that were drafted by the Ombudsman Commission. This including the statement of facts from the Commission.

About 15 questions were proposed to the Supreme Court to interpret.

Yangoru-Saussia: Waranaka’s application dismissed

A single-man Supreme Court bench dismissed the application by Waranaka, who sought leave to review an interlocutory decision and exercise of discretion of the National Court to allow the affidavits and competency applications of Maru and the Electoral Commission to go through.

The election petition before Justice Collin Makail is ready to go for trial in Wewak starting August 2018 and ending in September.

However, Waranaka filed an application to dismiss the affidavits and objections to competencies as being filed within time but served out of time.

OC welcomes court ruling

Chief Ombudsman Michael Dick said the decision reiterates its position as an institution that will protect the constitution and promote good governance.

The reference was purposely to look at the constitutionality of the 2006 amendments to section 27(4) of the Organic Law on the Duties and Responsibilities of Leadership, relating to changes in the rules of evidence in a leadership tribunal.  

Leader’s suspension effective on charge presentation

A five-man Supreme Court bench by majority clarified this through a special reference that was filed by the Ombudsman Commission.

The reference sought interpretation over the issue of leaders’ suspension from office once a leader’s conduct becomes subject to a Leadership Tribunal proceeding.

The commission sought clarification from the Supreme Court based from three conflicting Supreme Court decisions on the issue.

Refugees' claim against state stays

A three-man Supreme Court bench refused and dismissed an application by the state, which asked the court to dismiss the claim, alleging it was filed outside the required six month period.

On November 4, 2016, the 731 applicants gave the state notice of their intention to make a claim against it, pursuant to section 5 of the Claims By and Against the State Act 1996.