TRUTH HAS BEEN MOMENTARILY SUSPENDED

By GDW

 

People ask me how the politicians can do this or that. "What does the law say about this and that?"

 

Before I answer I say, "the law doesn't seem to matter any more...but I'll just try tell you what it says..."

 

Is the law relevant anymore?

 

We got people who make their own laws and amend and follow them as we go along. The true law, the Constitution, doesn't matter to them anymore. They're a law unto themselves.

 

They are collectively now "The King"...they make the rules, interpret the rules, execute the rules...and they break it whenever it suits them. I can explain the law till I'm blue in the face. But if it's lost its authority to a group of whimsical men then what's the use?

 

And if we are content to say "let it go, it's all good", then why should anyone be subjected to the law in the future? It has no authority except the authority we give it. Now isn't it true that all we need is majority decision and we can do anything? No matter how unlawful or immoral it is. Shall we just "let it go" whenever a person commits a crime for a "worthy" cause? How can we ever entertain such a thought?

 

There is no authority above us except a few rich men who are each elected by a tiny few thousand in some constituency, yet they claim to speak for the nation, as if they are all-knowing and omnipresent. They certainly believe they are all-powerful.  There is no law above them. Their will is law.

 

Everything is permissible. Everything is prohibited. All at the same time. Everything is subjective: applied only when circumstances and popular demand, emotion and self-interest allow.

 

Such is the scary reality when we lose ourselves to subjectivity, trading truth for preferences. Chaos and confusion are the order of things when the law is interpreted subjectively or completely ignored by people.

 

We all require rules or standards to keep order; to maintain coherence in society and in discourse. Whether we're debating on Sharp Talk, or minding our businesses on the streets, or playing sport, or conducting national affairs. There has to be something greater than ourselves that guides us. There cannot be coherent discussion on Sharp Talk if we didn't have some unwritten rules to keep discussions coherent. No sport can be played fairly without rules or with two sets of rules. No national affair can be conducted outside of the law without creating chaos and confusion and attracting the stigma of corruption. During elections imagine if there weren't rules on campaigning and electioneering. And for lawyers attending court...imagine no court rules. Chaos.

 

If we each define our own truth, if we define our own rules, if we define our own morality, we can never hope for a coherent society; let alone a society based on justice, fairness and equality. If anything, the events of the last few months since August last year prove that beyond doubt. Popular vote is not an accurate measure of right and just. It never was. Truth cannot be voted in or out. It depends not on whether we believe it, like it or hate it. It just is. You see if you and I start differing on the nature of truth itself we lose any basis on which we can argue ANY case. You cannot battle on two complete different arenas in completely different worlds. Such a war has no beginning and definitely no end.

 

If justice is defined by the person who has the power, not having obtained that power justly, then justice itself loses meaning and authority. And when those who do have the power to interpret and declare justice, that power being bestowed justly, are not allowed the freedom to do so without fear, favour or intimidation, where else can we go to inform ourselves of what is right and what is wrong. How can we establish justice if we reject the institutions and the documents that were mandated to guide us through those questions?

 

Our nation, despite daily life going on as normal, was brought to its knees in its politics and its jurisprudence, as justice and truth, righteousness, and the law, were redefined to suit warring parties. As in any sport the fight is unfair when one team does not play by the rules. No matter how popular that team is, it is not entitled to win.  

 

Regardless of how popular Mike Tyson was with the crowd, biting Evander Holyfield's ear wasn't within the rules; and so Tyson was disqualified and de-licensed. Should it have been let go because Tyson was popular?

 

Should we let it go because it is the popular sentiment? Or shall we return to the rule of law now? Shall we seek to enforce it and establish justice once again?

 

Shall we restore the authority of the Constitution so that in future we can still aspire to create a law-abiding society? God knows we need such a society.

 

God Bless Papua New Guinea.

 

Ganjiki

--

Ganjiki

"INSPIRING PASSION"

 

http://ppngtokauttokstret.blogspot.com/ 

JUDGES MADE RULING BASED ON MAMA LO

 Source:

The National, Thursday 30th May 2012

 

I HAVE always believed that laws, statutes, rules and regulations were devised to control the excesses of evil in society.  Laws were never intended to curb good behaviour because good people will always respect and abide by the law.  Evil, on the other hand, is only interested in destroying good and all it stands for, which is why we need laws to keep evil in check.

If not, evil will take over the land and our people will suffer greatly.

I am disheartened to watch the fight between parliament and the judiciary in the matter between Sir Michael Somare and Peter O'Neill.

 

We have a political impasse simply because one party is refusing to accept the court's interpretation of the Constitution.If you take the time to read the Constitution and the CPC Report 1974, which is the basis upon which the Constitution was derived, you would understand why the Supreme Court ruled the way it did.  It did not rule because it favoured Sir Michael.

On the contrary, it ruled because that is what the Constitution says.

 

The Constitution is the armour that protects us from evil; let us not destroy our armour.

Parliament has no authority to give itself powers as it is not expli­citly stated in the Constitution.

The Constitution is crystal clear on this matter in sections 10 and 11.

The exercise of power by our leaders also must be tempered with great responsibility.

I call on O'Neill and his supporters to respect the court's decision.

 

Sorry gentlemen, you were wrong and you have been found out.

 

It takes a great man to admit he was wrong and an even greater leader to do the same.

O'Neill, are you that man?I also call on Sir Michael to concede that the majority of MPs have aligned itself against you and have disregarded the Constitution to do what they have done. Sir Michael, you have nothing left to prove, you have been to the highest heights and I do not see how anyone in this generation will match your political achievements in this country. I ask both parties to be responsible in this matter and to do the right thing to restore and preserve the integrity of our judicial system.

 

This nation must be ruled on the basis of law and not the whims of a few proud men. Our judges do not have a choice in this matter, they must defend the Constitution; they cannot make rulings outside of that. We cannot attack them for doing their job.

 

If we are going to be leaders, let us be leaders who aspire to seek the truth and compete to do great things, let us not be bound by our own desires and reduce ourselves to competition to see who can do the most negative things.

 

I ask you all to declare a truce and respect the rulings of the court in upholding the Constitution.

 

Both sides will have an opportunity to form a new government in eight weeks time and only the Constitution provides the bedrock for this process to happen.

If we continue to erode the Constitution, then on what basis will the new government be formed?

 

Allan Bird

Wewak

The "Apprehension of Bias" argument is a Pathetic argument.

This post by Mark Flynn this evening on Sharp Talk is brilliant:

Mark B Flynn ▶ Sharp Talk

The O'Namah government has successfully moved all debate away from the 21 May 2012 decision by the SC, and the merits of it, to a beat up of the majority judges who delivered it.

The 2 Judges who declined to make a judgment erred in my opinion. We will never now know if they dissented, and the argument of that dissent, because they did not hand it down. Their statement of bias by their fellow judges was also not handed up, so it is a mute or silent position.

The inference then, is that they did not find facts against their fellow Judges argument, or for the argument of the O'Namah government lawyers.

The two judges who did not hand down their judgments cannot in my opinion now expect to stand on any appeal, due to a real bias against their fellow Judges who did hand down a decision.

The majority view of the Judges was supported by references to the Constitution. This is where the debate should be in my opinion. There's been no analysis of the decision of the majority of the Judges, just an attack on those learned men.

We should refocus on the judgement and its merits or otherwise.

--

And this comment by David Dotaona under Flynn's post:

I read the judgment by Judge Injia. It was a brilliant exposition of the law about 85 pages in which he pointed out all the constitutional breaches. The losing party had an unwinnable case so obviously they blamed the referee when they could never have one the case. But you must appreciate there has never been any cogent evidence to prove the allegations of bias. The email from the newspaper article was not even evidence at all. Eminent counsel Ian Malloy for ESP PEC completely destroyed the other sides arguments.

The two dissenting judges should have been wiser to disqualify themselves before the hearing when the allegations relating to the email surfaced. They had a duty to either disqualify or hand down their considered judgment rather than create a furthet debacle by not giving any ruling at all, by arguing with the CJ in open court thus bringing the judiciary further into disrepute.

And again by Flynn:

The 2 judges that failed to hand down a decision silenced themselves. The legality of the majority decision and its merits are whats important. There were many major breaches of the Constitution by the O'Namah government as outlined in the judgment. They continue to breach the Constitution.

---

Superb rationalizing by these gentlemen. PNGeans would do well to listen to reason (yes I know, who does?!) and make well-weighted opinions instead of believing the propaganda by ONamah.

Like I've said before. This de facto govt has always played the "majority rules!" card to justify their coup. Now they rely on the abstinence by the minority to argue their own case. Pathetic I say.

Unfortunately many PNGeans are just too gullible to resist the propaganda by ONamah.

God Bless PNG!

Tokaut Tokstret





Sent from R&G's iPhone

On the CHIEF JUDGE

this comment by Cybele Druma, (together with a post by Daniel Hasimani before) MAKES SO MUCH SENSE....

Cybele Druma:

He has an impeccable record and that has not changed after the ruling. The fact that the ruling is sound, shows his integrity in this entire saga. Only people with vested motives want to destroy his credibility. If he was corrupt as some allow themselves to believe, he would have gone to the highest bidder which would be the Onamah team, as they have millions to squander, not to mention the fact that he and his family's security would not have been safe from threat or jeopardy. No money could have bought what duress he suffered nor the malicious damage to his reputation and personal integrity. Had he ruled in favour of O'Namah we wouldn't be having this discussion and basically, we would know for sure he had been bought.

Source: Sharp Talk

What more proof do we need that ONamah have no concern for the RULE OF LAW?

25/05/12 

 

These are the "blunders" by ONamah leading to yesterday's "SAD DAY" events.

 

Words and actions by Belden Namah and the legal implications.

 

1.              24 hours Warning: Resign or be Arrested for Sedition

 

A crime is a crime is a crime. It is attached to the person and not the office. Namah betrays an arrogance when he implies through his statement that Arrest is conditional for all alleged crimes. If a crime is alleged lawfully, arrest should not be conditional. The CJ would have to be arrested whether or not he steps down from office. Of course this just shows that the crime of sedition alleged against the CJ is nothing but an attack on the judiciary by ONAMAH to remove anyone who legitimately stands in their way of power.

 

The actions may amount to malicious prosecution and wrongful arrest if proven to be without legal basis but based on political mileage.

 

2.             To/Re CJ: (source: today's dailies)

 

a.                   "You are the most corrupt person in this country."

b.                  "A man with no integrity"

c.                   "The CJ is a threat to National Security"

d.                  "his lack of integrity and judicial bias"

e.                  "CJ is drunk with power"

 

Defamation Act...CJ can sue Namah for public statements damaging his reputation.

 

3.             "Now, after the Supreme Court has held that all decisions to day of PM O'Neil and his Cabinet are valid and cannot be subject to challenge..."

 

Court order is qualified, "all bona fide decisions" are valid. Is the decision to suspend CJ bona fide? In any case Namah and O'Neil have refused to recognise the Court's decision. Is he now picking and choosing parts of the decision to recognise whilst disregarding the substance of it??

 

4.             Directed police officers to arrest the CJ.

 

The Police are under the Command of the Police Commissioner...

 

"196. CONTROL OF THE POLICE FORCE.

(1) The Police Force is subject to the control of the National Executive Council through a Minister.

(2) The Minister has no power of command within the Police Force, except to the extent provided for by a Constitutional Law or an Act of the Parliament."

 

5.             When asked what the Millitary is doing there at the Court House, Mr Namah said "They are on callout".

 

Call out of Military Personnel may only be done by the Head of State in accordance with s. 20 of the Defence Act. There is no evidence of the Head of State issuing a Call Out. If there is please show and tell. In any case proper procedure for a call-out was never followed...of course that is expected from the ONAMAH gang.

 

20. AID TO CIVIL POWER.

(1) At the request of the appropriate civil authority, the Defence Force, or a part of the Defence Force, may be called out by the Head of State, acting on advice, for prescribed service in aid of the civil power where, in the opinion of the Head of State, acting on advice, a situation threatening national security or the preservation of public order exists such that the intervention of the Defence Force to support the civil power is required.

 

(2) The Prime Minister shall immediately send a statement of the reason for the call-out under Subsection (1) to the Speaker, for presentation to the Parliament.

(3) If the Parliament is not in session on the date of the call-out under Subsection (1), it shall be summoned to meet within 10 days after that date.

 

In what way was the arrest of the CJ a threat to national security and how was public order threatened at the court house that justified the false call-out??

 

6.              "The CJ has no power to elect or appoint a PM, which is the sole responsibility of the Parliament".

 

That power is subject to relevant provisions of the Constitution. Namah thinks that power is boundless. The Supreme Court's decision is an interpretation of the Constitution which is the SUPREME authority in PNG...not the Parliament or the Executive or the Judiciary. The SUPREME COURT DID NOT APPOINT THE PM...IT DECLARED A CONSTITUTIONALLY APPROPRIATE PRIME MINISTER.

 

Mr. Namah has stooped so low in the events of yesterday. Jamie Maxtone-Maxtone Graham is worse off for endorsing those deplorable actions by Namah and the Mercenary cops and soldiers. Commissioner Kulunga should be ashamed of himself for poor leadership allowing his men to be controlled by a person who has no authority to control them. Thomas Eluh and Peter Guiness are not worthy of that Blue Uniform if they cannot think independently, charging a judge for delivering a valid and sound court judgement, when they should know full well that judges are immune from prosecution when they exercise their judicial powers in court. Good luck to them trying to prosecute the alleged crime...it may come back to haunt them. I'm sure Public Prosecutor will not entertain it if he's worthy of his office.  

 

Where are our values? Do we have any loyalty to anything worthy? Does our word and our oath have any value?

 

Oh PNG, yumi olsem wanem nau?

 

Tokaut Tokstret

What kind of Patriot do you think I Am!?

A senior lawyer for the ONamah gang emailed me on Wed attempting to intimidate me into silence re my comments on fb, twitter and my blog. I've responded to that lawyer giving as good as I got and maybe one better...that lawyer has not responded any of my followup emails which have been ccd to my Secretary. Perhaps caught up in trying to counsel Namah....

You're dealing with a man who loves this country more than his job...and is not afraid to lose something for what he believes in and for his loyalty to the Constitution. I'm not loyal to a clientele like you. I'm loyal to my people. I don't intend to stand aside and let my people believe a well-funded propaganda exercise by rogue politicians and their mercenary lawyers and spin doctors.

It hurts me to see an ill-informed public form ill-informed opinions regarding the rule of law in this country. So I make my comments to give people a side to consider: the side of the Constitution.

Social media and the Internet is all we got. We can't pay for full-page ads nor call a press conference because that spineless press will not come because people like me are so ordinary. Those who can draw the press are either spreading their propaganda or are too spineless to speak the truth.

I hope to God that your consciences will burn as you support a messed-up politician drunk with power and self-righteousness.

I love my country too much to be silent.

God Bless PNG...

Ganjiki


Sent from R&G's iPhone

SCR 1 and 2 of 2012

Some major orders in the Decision given on the 21st (Monday) of May 2012:

 

Order 2: Parliament's decision made on 9 December 2011 to rescind leave of absence granted to Sir Michael Somare for the May meeting is inconsistent with s. 50 of the Constitution, and s. 11, s. 19, s. 155(6) and s. 157 of the Constitution and therefore declared unconstitutional, invalid and of no effect.

 

Order 5: The Election of Peter O'Neil as PM on 12 December 2011 and his subsequent confirmation by Speaker, in his  capacity as Acting Governor-General, on 15 Dec 2011, are inconsistent with s. 142(1) and (2) of the Constitution as interpreted and applied in SCR 3/2011 Ref by ESP Prov Govt, and therefore, declared unconstitutional, invalid and of no effect.

 

Order 6: Governor-General Sir Michael Ogio's actions in recognising Sir Michael Somare as the Prime Minister in compliance with the decision of the Supreme Court in SCR No. 3 of 2011 is constitutionally valid and effective for all intention purposes. Governor-General's other actions in retracting that action and recognising the re-appointment of Peter O'Neil as Prime Minister are inconsistent with the Constitution, s. 11, s.19 and s. 155(6) of the Constitutional, and therefore are unconstitutional and invalid.

 

Order 7: That at all material times, Sir Michael Somare was and is the member for the East Sepik Provincial seat; and, the legitimate Prime Minister of Papua New Guinea until the writs for the 2012 National elections are returned and a new PM is elected in the first sitting of the next Parliament pursuant to s. 142 of the Constitution.

 

Order 9: Pusuant to s. 153(4) of the Constittion, and subject to the Constitution generally, the bona fide decisions and actions made and implemented by the de facto government of Peter O'Neil as Primine Minister and any of those ministers appointed by him, between 2 August 2011 and 20 May 2012, are valid and effective.

 

Order 10: Pursuant to s. 11, 19 (2), and s. 155(6) of the Constitution, it is the duty of all persons, including the Governor-General, and the Speaker of Parliament and all other members of the Exective government officers, bodies and agencies, are under duty, so far as within their respective lawful powers; to gve full effect to an comply with the binding opinions and orders issued by this court in SCR No. 1 and 2 of 2012.

 

---

 

Now before we start shooting our judges let's check the soundness of the decision in light of the Constitution. We ALL agree that the Constitution is SUPREME right?

 

Tokaut Tokstret

 

 

--

Ganjiki

"INSPIRING PASSION"

 

http://ppngtokauttokstret.blogspot.com/ 

A Birthday Prayer

By GDW

(penned this on my birthday but didn't post it. Never too late!)

Dear Lord.

For April 17 onwards I ask for no more twists in my country. If You would kindly convict us and our leaders of our wrongdoings, and humble us so we can accept the course of the law, and submit to the rule of law (which originates in YOU), I'd love that.

Give strength, courage and wisdom to those who make a stand for righteousness and justice. Protect the citizens of this country...from enemies foreign and domestic. Convict the policeman who's loyalty to the Constitution may have been drowned by a temporary delight supplied by a selfish master. The last thing we need is ruthless men in uniforms...fully armed. Help us to have the good sense not to fight among ourselves, so that we can discern the real enemy and defeat it.

I'd also appreciate it if You would restore this nation's sense of direction. We're becoming terribly lost as our leaders seem so lost and drunk with the toxins of power and greed; not knowing where to take us. I remember Jesus rejecting an offer of power over all nations, from the devil. I wish my leaders had a fraction of Jesus' courage and dignity. Is that too much to ask? Raise those kinds for this country. Perhaps we fit Jesus' description of the lost Jewish people in His day, we "are like sheep without a shepherd". But You are the Good Shepherd, please find us and guide us home.

I have a clue that the type of leaders you allow are a reflection of either the sinfulness or the righteousness of the people. Maybe WE THE PEOPLE need to change eh? Yes, Help us.

Thank you for the gift of life, family, friends, my woman and a great country. I really don't need anything else. Above all I have You. But there's people out there who don't know you and it would be great if You'd find a way to make them turn to You.

Help the Church to point them to You.

Speaking of the Church please wake us up. Help us see how we can better serve this world/nation with Your Word and with Godly wisdom. Help us to pray and give us some motivation for it. Help the church leaders provide the leadership that this nation so desperately longs for. Unite the Church.

Help the Fathers of the multitude of homes to lead their families well. Increase faithful, loving fathers to impact our nation through the citizens that they house in their homes. As you know stats show that "fatherless" homes produce wayward children and bad citizenry, so help fathers lead well. Thanks for the Amazing Grace on families that are fatherless yet have great children. Bless and strengthen the single mothers who work tirelessly and prayerfully for them.

There's so much that's wrong about our country. But there's also so much that's going right. I ask that the good and the right would significantly overcome the wrong and the bad. I'm sure if WE THE PEOPLE helped out it would make your job a bit easier.

Bless and keep our country from chaos and bloodshed. And may we not become slaves in our own land...

God Bless PNG

Ganjiki


Sent from R&G's iPhone