PNG Supreme Court allows government to be challenged

Transcript

The asylum-seeker deal between Australia and Papua New Guinea is set to be tested in PNG courts after the opposition leader was granted standing to legally challenge the Government.

The five Supreme Court judges unanimously ruled in favour of Belden Namah, and strongly criticised the public solicitor and ombudsman for being silent on the issue.

Our correspondent, Todagia Kelola was at the Supreme Court yesterday and spoke to Alex Perrottet.

TODAGIA KELOLA: Basically they stated that Mr Namah, as an applicant, has sufficient interest as he is a citizen who has a genuine concern for the subject matter and that he wishes to raise significant constitutional issues. He's not a mad busy body and that he has no improper motive in making this application.

ALEX PERROTTET: Sounds from their reasoning that any citizen in PNG who brought this application would have been successful.

TK: Yes, that's basically, I mean in a nutshell, that's what I saw. That they said although this might set a precedent where it will open the floodgates for other people to make such applications, Mr Namah's application is a slightly different one in that although he's a citizen he is also a member of Parliament and also the opposition leader. So he's not a busy body and that what he's trying to ask the Supreme Court is a good motive, it is not an improper motive.

AP: Did the Supreme Court make any statement about the likelihood of this challenge to the government being successful?

TK: When they were coming up with this decision, they also stated that he has a really good case in that there are so many constitutional issues and constitutional questions that need to be addressed by the Supreme Court in recommending whether these asylum seekers brought in from Australia came in legally or under the human rights law that is written within the Constitution.

AP: Was there any reference to Mr Namah's argument that other bodies of the country that might have standing in this case were silent and didn't come forward?

TK: Yes there were also, in a statement, that, it's a direct quote: "It is perhaps surprising that two constitutional officers that should feel a great responsibility for protection and enforcement of human rights in Papua New Guinea, the Public Solicitor and the Ombudsman Commission appear to have shown no interest in this issue. The Public Solicitor is a law officer, and therefore entitled under section 19(3)(c) to make an application under section 91, but frankly it is difficult to remember the last time that the Public Solicitor exercised this important power. The Ombudsman Commission is expressly referred to in section 19(3)(e). It has an impressive record of making special references on a wide range of constitutional issues under section 19(1) but the issues raised in the present case, as significant as they are, do not appear to have attracted the Commission's attention." That's the direct quote from what the judge has stated about these two constitutional bodies.

AP: Ok, that's a fairly strong quote. Did Mr Namah make any statement after the decision was handed down?

TK: Oh yes, obviously he was very happy with the decision and he said the application that he made was for all Papua New Guineans and that he was trying to point out that he's fighting for the human rights of every citizen of this country.