Douglas Tomuriesa, Pope Francis and James Marape

Image
  Opposition Leader Douglas Tomuriesa said he is disappointed and embarrassed over the way His Holiness Pope Francis was treated by Prime Minister James Marape over the last three-days during the Papal visit, and the lack of courtesy and respect shown by the Prime Minister. He said the Prime Minister continuously declares PNG as a ‘Christian country’ and prides himself on being a religious individual but he was surprised when the Pope was continuously snubbed by the PM over the weekend since the Pope’s arrival on Friday. “The Pope is the head of the Catholic church, the largest Christian church in the world and he is also a head of state. “PNG not only being a Christian country, but a country that prides itself as a ‘friend to all, enemy to none’, the PM should be according the Pope with the highest level of respect,” Tomuriesa said. The Opposition Leader pointed out that on Friday, the Prime Minister did not welcome the Pope at the airport, a tradition he had accorded to many othe...

Kramer must appeal tribunal ruling

 


Letters

IN the name of fairness and natural justice, the dismissed Member for Madang Bryan Kramer should be allowed to appeal the ruling of the leadership tribunal that dismissed him for scandalising the Judiciary.
It is crucial for Kramer to appeal to the higher court his dismissal as most people want the higher court to interpret what is accorded in Section 46 of the Constitution in relation to whether there are limits in that provision on the freedom of expression.
Here, Section 46 of the Constitution gives a person freedom to express what they see and feel as improper or can openly counter it by expressing via the public media on the suspicious conduct or malicious intent of other persons holding public office.
Quite frankly, when Kramer’s alleged offence was spotted at that time, the tribunal provided no evidence of public outrage that could have resulted in open public protest or protest in other social media platforms that could nail Kramer to the cross.
A parliamentary privilege accorded to an MP in the people’s house (parliament) is by principle not the same as what Kramer may have uttered on social media as a citizen criticising the judiciary or the chief justice, where most people think Kramer is protected by Section 46.
However, if the tribunal headed by Justice Lawrence Kangwia feels there are limits to Section 46 on what a person can say, the tribunal should quote the other supporting laws that supersede Section 46 of the Constitution.
What if Kramer was not a MP and had scandalised the Judiciary?
Would he be culpable for any form of punishment?
What about other the MPs who have made similar statements before; can they be brought in for questioning?
We note also that no leadership tribunal was set up to investigate Belden Namah for storming into the Waigani National Court.
This was a worse crime when putting the two together.
Some clarification is needed to differentiate an MP and an ordinary citizen scandalising a system of government or any head of the three arms of the government and on whether the penalties would be the same.
Whether Kramer does file an appeal or not, can anyone file a special reference to the Supreme Court for a full five-judge bench to hear and determine the limits of Section 46 of the Constitution that gives everyone wide powers to criticise a government?

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

REMNANT AJ Group Limited donated a new vehicle to NHC

MARAPE’S DECISION DEFICIENCY

Speaker's Decision Sparks Controversy in Parliament

Cockfighting ops busted

Provincial MP for West New Britain, Sasindran Muthuvel has called on the government to commit to the people of Papua New Guinea that it will prioritise Papua New Guineans in the sale of Motor Vehicle Insurance Limited’s (MVIL) shares in BSP Financial Group.