Ombudsman Commission of Papua New Guinea v The Honourable Justice Sakora, Messrs Manuhu and Karapo (Constituting the Leadership Tribunal) and Paul Pora

• Jurisdiction: Papua New Guinea
• Judge: Amet CJ
• Judgment Date: 06 December 1996
• Citation: (1996) N1720
• Court: National Court
• Year: 1996
• Judgement Number: N1720

National Court: Amet CJ

Judgment Delivered: 6 December 1996

N1720

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[In the National Court of Justice]

OS 256 OF 1996

OMBUDSMAN COMMISSION OF PAPUA NEW GUINEA

- Plaintiff

AND

THE HON JUSTICE SAKORA, MESSRS MANUHU AND KARAPO

Constituting the Leadership Tribunal

- 1st Defendant

AND

PAUL PORA

- 2nd Defendant

WAIGANI: AMET, CJ

2 & 6 December 1996

R U L I N G

AMET CJ: This is an application by the Ombudsman Commission (the Commission) for leave to apply for Judicial Review of the Proceedings of the Leadership Tribunal (the Tribunal) inquiring into allegations of misconduct in office by the Hon Paul Pora, MP.

The Tribunal has not yet completed its inquiry. The issues giving rise to this application occurred in the following circumstances. The stage had been reached in the Tribunal’s inquiry where the Prosecution had closed its case, and the leader, Mr Pora was himself completing his evidence in chief, when the issue arose over the non-disclosure of certain documents by the Commission.

Prosecuting Counsel before the Tribunal, Mr Manek requested a search of the Ombudsman Commission’s files and records with a view to locating any documents associated with the subject letter of 14th August 1992, Exhibit N11, the copy of a letter from Ombudsman Ridges to the then Secretary for Finance and Planning, Mr Gerea Aopi. Mr Ravi Perera, the senior legal officer with the Commission swore and filed an affidavit annexing certain documents which were located, relating to that letter.

As a result of the disclosure of these related correspondences, the following day Counsel for Mr Pora made application that, the Tribunal discharge Mr Pora, terminate the proceedings and award costs against the Commission in favour of the leader. In the course of the submissions in support of this application, Counsel for Mr Pora had made observations, comments and remarks which were critical of and adversely reflected on the role of the Commission in its investigative functions and in particular in relation to the documents that were revealed before the Tribunal.

Counsel prosecuting the leader Mr Manek replied to the submissions for the leader, and the Tribunal reserved its ruling to be delivered on the Monday following.

On resumption the following week Mr Toop, legal counsel in the Commission appeared before the Tribunal and made application for leave to intervene to make submissions to the Tribunal in relation to issues that were raised in relation to the disclosure of the documents which were subject of submission by Counsel for Mr Pora.

The Tribunal refused this application by Mr Toop to intervene.

The Tribunal then proceeded to rule upon the application by Mr Pora and dismissed it. In that ruling the Tribunal made observations and remarks relating to the importance of the documents and the conduct of the Commission in relation to those documents.

It is the ruling of the Tribunal refusing the application by Counsel for the Commission to intervene and the Tribunal’s subsequent observations and remarks relating to the Commission’s actions and conduct in relation to the documents that are now the subject of this application for leave to apply for Judicial Review of them.

One of the specific observations or comment of the Tribunal sought to be reviewed is that the Commission deliberately withheld vital evidence exculpatory of Mr Paul Pora. The proposed grounds on which relief will be sought in the review application are principally two-fold: that the Tribunal had denied the Commission natural justice right of hearing, and secondly the Tribunal had showned bias against the Commission.

Application for leave, under O 16 r 3(2) are technically to be made ex parte, but as the leader is vitally interested in the outcome of the application of review, should leave be granted, in particular in relation to the injunctive relief being sought, I had allowed the leader Paul Pora leave to intervene to be heard on this application for leave. Though the rules stipulate that application for leave is ex parte, the discretion nevertheless, in my view, rests in the Court in apppropriate circumstances...