Judges have biases and prejudices, says O’Neill

BY KEITH JACKSON

PRIME MINISTER PETER O’NEILL last night invoked the concept of a “people’s government” to defend the introduction of new laws that he says “define and impose clarity on judicial behavior that the wider community [may] perceive as biased.”

In a nationwide address following demonstrations against the laws in the streets of Port Moresby on Friday, Mr O’Neill admitted that some of the laws made by his government “may seem harsh and vindictive at first impression in the eyes of critics and opponents.”

But he said that “judges – like any public servants - are employees of the people and the nation. They can be disciplined if there is reasonable evidence of ethical and professional lapse...

“In a nutshell, our people’s parliament has made a new law to define the judicial behavior in relation to the conduct of judges.

“This law is definitely not a political tool for usurping the impartiality of judges or for eroding the letter, intent and spirit of judicial and justice administration,” he said.

Mr O’Neill began his address by restating his view that “governments and prime ministers cannot be installed in office by the courts – especially not by the judiciary.

“Judges of our national and supreme courts have no jurisdiction to decide, appoint and install a government or a prime minister to office.”

He said the new law “is not draconian and does not erode the impartiality of the judges as voiced by critics, including the usual two or three publicity-seeking members of the PNG Law Society.”

He claimed that Australia, India, Canada and other Commonwealth nations had similar laws. “We are not alone here.”

Mr O’Neill said the government “appreciated intervention in the public interest” by students of the University of Papua New Guinea in relation to the judicial conduct law.

“However, let me say that our people’s government does not have a fight with the nation’s judiciary.

“The people’s parliament has put into written law what was - until last Wednesday – a mere understanding and belief which we all took for granted that every judge on the national and supreme court is free of bias and prejudice.”

But he went on to say: “Judges are human beings with emotions. They have feelings, biases and prejudices. They have families, relatives, tribesmen, and school and college friends too.

“Why would they not be biased and prejudiced one way or another when any of their family or friends has a court case that comes before them?”

See transcript of the full address below

Comments

[Paul Oates]

I agree with Phil that PM O’Neill should be given the benefit of the doubt unless proven otherwise. After all, that’s the tenet of our legal systems.

Regarding another accepted tenet, to have a judge sit in judgement over a case involving anything to do with himself seems to stand out like a sore thumb. Justice must be transparent to be accepted.

Political accommodation is never an easy thing to achieve given the people O’Neill has to work with until the election.

To have kept his government together at all (given some of who are members of it), demonstrates he has what it takes to manage the business of government and lead the country.

Only a few short weeks to go until the general elections. The real test will be what happens after the election results are announced.

[Phil Fitzpatrick]

On the face of it what Peter O'Neill says makes a lot of sense. If I was a Papua New Guinean I'd give him the benefit of the doubt.

The proof of the pudding might be in whether he sacks Belden Namah and allows an appeal against the Ramu Nickel case.

I suspect that the appalling Namah case has a lot to do with numbers. I wonder how many members he would take back to Somare if he was sacked.

The Ramu Nickel case is clearly one where a biased judge made an incorrect finding. An appeal would be an interesting test of O'Neill's integrity.

[Bruce Daosak]

I wonder why he said governments are not decided by courts.

In that case why do we have the court of disputed returns? Why do we have to follow court orders to hold by-elections?
What, if it so happened, that Oneil's own seat was disputed and there had to be a by-election?

Are politicians above reproach now because of the new law? Has Oneil become suddenly untouchable by the courts?

Forget the anti-corruption rhetoric, Oneil, you can't even discipline your own deputy.

Plus one wonders if the Sweep Team will ever investigate the NPF saga.

[Ross Wilkinson]

He is right that the judges are not empowered to appoint people to government and to the prime ministership.

However, he is wrong in his interpretation of events to consider that the behaviour of the courts is reason to base this legislation on.

The constitution was drafted to recognise that the supreme court contained the wisdom to determine on constitutional questions. This was the question put to it last year.

Whether or not Somare was a good prime minister or not was not the question referred to the court. It was whether the correct procedures to remove him from that office were followed or not.

The court ruled the removal was not correct with the result that it was up to parliament to consider him still the prime minister.

It was also inferred that if parliament did not like this ruling then it would have to use other constitutional means to remove him, that is, the no confidence method.

As this process was time-barred by the constitution, the only position was to put the question to the electorate through national elections.

It has not been put to the nation that the judges showed bias in reaching this decision.

However, it does appear that, in trying to show that there was bias in other decisions, then the judges are not fit and proper people to hold this office and, therefore, other decisions are also biased and invalid.

There is an existing mechanism to appoint and remove judges and the reasons put to date do not justify the need to put this new law.

[Colin Huggins]

Talk about grasping for straws. This takes the cake, and a big cake at that. Even Marie-Antoinette would not thought of a cake so big!
Seems that he has already forgotten one Falcon 900, doing a mystery trip.
I just hope that there are alternatives up in PNG to take up the reins? No more Somares, O'Neills and Namahs!
O'Neill seems to be carrying on like General George Custer and should read about the "Battle of the Little Bighorn which has come to be popularly known as "Custer's Last Stand".
Then again he should just note what has happened this weekend in the state elections of QLD!
People are not fools! Politicans are elected to serve the people, not to abuse and use the people for personal gain. Hopefully the citizens of PNG will say very soon, "Enough is enough".

[Peter]

His playing "the peoples" card should ring alarm bells.

And his statement that "Judges are human beings with emotions. They have feelings, biases and prejudices. They have families, relatives, tribesmen, and school and college friends too." - sounds rather frighteningly like a threat.

Same applies to pollies, Pete.

And Australia, India, Canada DO NOT have similar laws. Give refs please Mr O'Neil if you wish to make such statements.

I suspect O'Neill is relying too much on his speech writers (just who are they?) and maybe has forgotten NPF and Namah at Star Casino etc.

Martyn - over to you.