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