Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback Constitutional Office-holders Rights Tribunal of Papua New Guinea

Konivaro, Clerk of Parliament, In re [2015] PGCORT 1; N5977 (28 May 2015)

N5977 (LT)

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICE
HOLDERS RIGHTS TRIBUNAL

LT 1 of 2015

REFERENCE BY THE NATIONAL EXECUTIVE COUNCIL

OF A MATTER PURSUANT TO SECTION 5 ORGANIC LAW ON THE GUARANTEE OF THE RIGHTS AND INDEPENDENCE OF CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICE HOLDERS

TO THE TRIBUNAL

APPOINTED UNDER SECTION 4 AND 5 OF THAT LAW

AND

IN THE MATTER OF VELA KONIVARO,
CLERK OF THE NATIONAL PARLIAMENT

THE HONOURABLE DEREK HARTSHORN, ML, CHAIRMAN,
THE HONOURABLE MARTIN IPANG, MEMBER,
THE HONOURABLE SIR KINA BONA, KBE, MEMBER

Waigani:
2015: May 4th, 28th

Cases:

SCRev No. 1 of 1990; Electoral Commission [1990] PNGLR 441

Bonga v. Sheehan [1997] PNGLR 452

Re Public Prosecutor's Power to Request the Chief Justice to Appoint a

Leadership Tribunal (2008) SC1011

Counsel:

Mr. J. Issack, for the Constitutional Office-Holder
Mr. P. Kaluwin, for the Public Prosecutor

28th May, 2015

1. BY THE TRIBUNAL: This is a decision on an application for this tribunal to be disbanded. The application is made by Mr. Vela Konivaro, the Clerk of the National Parliament, in respect of whom this tribunal was constituted.

Background

2. On 23rd January 2015 the members of this tribunal were appointed by the Chief Justice pursuant to sections 4 and 5 Organic Law on the Guarantee of the Rights and Independence of Constitutional Office-holders (Organic Law) to enquire into and determine what is stated as allegations of misconduct in office brought by the National Executive Council (NEC) against Mr. Konivaro.

The application

3. In his application filed 23rd February 2015, Mr. Konivaro seeks six orders. They seek that the tribunal was not properly constituted, does not have jurisdiction and should be disbanded. The orders sought raise five grounds. At the hearing of the application Mr. Konivaro also relied upon a further 2 grounds.

4. The grounds in essence are:

a) the improper conduct allegations are referred to as "misconduct in office" and thereby necessitate a different procedure to be followed than has been in this instance;

b) this tribunal is not correctly named in the instrument of appointment and the instrument of appointment is incorrect;

c) the appointing authority, the NEC did not conduct an investigation as is required;

d) there is no proper statement of reasons;

e) the Prime Minister incorrectly acted unilaterally in requesting the Public Prosecutor to prosecute this matter before the tribunal.