Commentary by: Alois Yoba Bai.
Fellow Papua New Guineans,
I am writing this with a heavy heart and a confused mind. Our Prime Minister, James Marape, has reportedly described recent referrals concerning our Chief Justice, Sir Gibbs Salika, as "unprecedented." This label makes us stop and ask: Unprecedented because it threatens the powerful? Or unprecedented because it actually follows the rule of law?
We have to connect the dots here, and when we do, the picture is disturbing. It forces us to ask a question that should never need asking in a democracy: Do we have two sets of laws in this country—one for ordinary citizens and another, unbreakable one for our politicians and top bureaucrats?
The "Unprecedented" Claim vs. The Constitution
Firstly, we need to understand what the Constitution actually says. It is the Supreme Law. Period. Section 11 clearly states that the Constitution is the Supreme Law, and any law inconsistent with it is, to the extent of the inconsistency, invalid .
The Constitution also establishes an independent National Judicial System, with the Chief Justice at its helm, to guard this law . The Supreme Court, led by the Chief Justice, has the final say on interpreting our laws . So, if there are referrals or questions raised about the conduct of any public officer—including the Chief Justice—the proper legal channels exist. So why is the process "unprecedented"? It is only unprecedented if we are used to seeing the powerful simply walk away.
If the Prime Minister believes the process is wrong, the proper place to argue that is in the very courts he is criticizing. This talk of "unprecedented" actions feels like an attempt to undermine the very institutions meant to keep us all equal.
The Paraka Shadow: A Tale of "Selective" Memory
The Prime Minister’s current stance is incredibly hard to swallow when you look at his history, specifically the infamous Paraka scandal. This is where your question about "two sets of laws" becomes terrifyingly real.
Just recently, Hon. Kerenga Kua gave evidence in court regarding the Paraka case. He testified about the immense pressure applied to facilitate illegal payments of K41 million to Paraka Lawyers—money that did not follow due process . He spoke about the "secrecy surrounding the transactions" .
What was Chief Justice Sir Gibbs Salika’s reaction to this testimony? According to reports, His Honour questioned Kua on why he and other senior ministers did not have the courage to put in a formal complaint to police . The Chief Justice was essentially asking: Why were the politicians protected while the system was looted?
And what was Prime Minister Marape's response to this resurfacing of the Paraka matter? He didn't address the core issue of the missing K162 million . Instead, he launched a fierce attack on the media for reporting it. On his official government website, he accused the Post-Courier of "fake news" and "slander," threatening them with legal action for merely reporting what was said in his own colleague's court testimony .
He stated, "I have never approved any of the payments made under the Paraka claims process. In fact, I was the last Finance Minister who put a stop to the series of claims and payments" .
This is a very contradictory position, Mr. Prime Minister. On one hand, you attack the media for reporting on a scandal that involves your time as Finance Minister. On the other hand, you describe actions involving the highest judicial officer as "unprecedented."
You cannot have it both ways. You cannot demand the media be silent on your past while questioning the processes that might hold the current judiciary accountable.
Are Our Leaders Immune?
This brings us back to the citizen's fear: Are our top leaders immune to the Constitution?
When a Prime Minister attacks the media for reporting court proceedings , and then casts aspersions on processes involving the Chief Justice, it creates a chilling effect. It suggests that the rules are for the little people—the ones who go to jail for stealing a few hundred Kina.
But for the political elite, even a scandal involving K162 million (the Paraka funds) is just a matter of "media narrative" and "fake news" . We saw the Opposition recently note that the government's reports of success are "misleading" and that wealth distribution remains "highly unequal" . That inequality isn't just economic; it seems to be a legal inequality, too.
We cannot allow our leaders to pick and choose which parts of the Constitution apply to them.
The Bottom Line
Mr. Marape, you still have the outstanding issue of the Paraka saga hanging over your head, a saga that Chief Justice Salika is actively seeking truth and courage on . Your current media statements attacking the process and the messengers are, as you say, "very contradictory."
If the referrals regarding the Chief Justice are "unp
No comments:
Post a Comment