PNG Attorney General challenges competency of Supreme Court reference

 The Supreme Court reference filed by the opposition primarily asking the high court to recall Parliament and have a motion of no confidence entertained has three hurdles to overcome.

The first one was on Thursday August 1, when a full bench of the Supreme Court headed by Chief Justice Sir Gibbs Salika  begun hearing preliminary matters relating to the Supreme Court reference.

Lawyers for the Attorney General were  allowed to make an application to challenge the competency of the reference.

If the high court upholds the objection to competency then the opposition's reference is dismissed.

The Attorney General Pila Nningi through his lawyers have argued that the issues raised are not constitutional matters but are procedural matters relating to the conduct of the Private Business Committee.

Most of the issues have been settled by the Speaker by allowing dissent to take place. In total it raised seven grounds.

The lawyers further argued happenings in Parliament are non justiceable -meaning the court cannot interfere with happenings in Parliament.

They argued breach of Parliament standing orders are not breaches of constitutional matters and procedural happenings in Parliament have not breached the constitutional right of the opposition leader.

It was strongly argued  proper facts have to be pleaded.

Lawyer for the Speaker has agreed with the arguments by the Attorney General's lawyers  and endorsed them asking the high court to dismiss the reference.

The opposition's lawyers have argued that the objection to competency is in itself incompetent and should be dismissed.

Their primary argument is that the objection was filed outside of allowed time.

They have also argued that it was an abuse of process because the issue of competency should be raised during the application on standing by Tomuriesa was heard. That had passed.

The oppositions lawyers have also argued the objection was incompetent because- it was an amended objection and leave was not granted to amend the application before moving it on August 01.

There has also been arguments advanced for lawyers failing to be models in litigation complying with orders and not frustrating or delaying the process. This has sparked a few personal words against lawyers at the bar after the session.

All parties now await the ruling of the high court whether the reference will be dismissed or not.

If the reference survives after this objection,the high court will have to deal with  other applications of dismissal and calling of facts before hearing of the substantive reference.

Outside of court the opposition are adamant they will survive the first hurdle and the Attorney General Pila Niningi also has the same vigour.

He says its only preliminary matters.