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
Post a Comment