Lawyers want date for the hearing of Opposition's Supreme Court reference deferred

 

A five man bench of the Supreme Court will rule on Wednesday (31 July 2024) whether orders by Justice Derek Hartshorn to have all matters relating to the Supreme Court reference by the opposition are heard on August first or not.

 The bench comprising Judges Allan David, Lawrence Kangwia, Joseph Yagi, Jacinta Murray and Hitele Polume-Kiele heard the arguments for more than three hours on July,29.

 

Lawyers for the Attorney General and the Speaker say they are aggrieved and dissatisfied . They want the supreme court bench to have a supervisory jurisdiction over the dates for matters to be heard.

 

It  was quite intense and many concerns were raised as lawyers and the five judges exchanged arguments on matters of law and rules that govern the procedures of bringing  matters to court.

 

Lawyers for the Attorney General brought a motion to set aside the orders issued by Justice Derek Hartshorn which essentially said all procedural or primary applications and the substantive supreme court reference which raised issues on constitutional matters relating to the happenings in Parliament on the afternoon of June 5 were heard together on August 01.

 

The Attorney General and the Speaker are deeply aggrieved that this was not in the interest of justice and fairness and the dates should be vacated.

 

While the lawyers strongly, argued the substantive hearing and all other procedural applications would be heard at the same time, Justice Joseph Yagi intervened, asking the lawyers to refer the court to the order which stated that the substantive matter would be heard as well.

 

It was later discovered that the order written was a "substantive appeal", and all applications listed were interlocutory or they all relate to the legal cause of action.

 

The lawyers were led to proceed after they apologized to the court but affirmed the orders set by Justice Hartshorn was to roll things forward and prejudiced to the Attorney General and the Speaker.

 

This was breach of natural justice, practice and procedure  and compliance to proper case management. They are not ready to proceed with the substantive reference.

 

Lawyer for the opposition has however argued that the motion to set the dates aside, is not properly before the court and therefore should not invoke the high courts jurisdiction. It must be dismissed.

 

The opposition also argued the lawyers did not comply with instructions to file documents on time when ample time was given.

 

Further there was no substantial issues raised.

 

There are applications to dismiss the supreme court reference and an objection to competency pending. On Monday, July29, it was highlighted there is also an application that facts must be filed and disputed to assist the court.

 

Otherwise it would be a disaster but essentially the Speaker and Attorney General’s lawyer are saying all is not ready but the Oppositions lawyers argue there is no need for additional documents or procedures and the matter should be expedited and heard on August 01.

 

The ruling on Wednesday(July 31) by the full court would be critical to see how the reference progresses.