Page 24 - IB July 2018

Politics

declare the Criminal Procedure (Amend-
ment) Act 2018 – which had attempted
among other things to impose a ceiling of
AU$3000 (USD2,216) on legal fee pay-
out -- null and void, and an attempt to
“frustrate the defendants.”
“I am satisfied and find that a statu-
tory limit of $3000 for all legal fees and
disbursements in this case, which has
been before the court numerous times
in the past nearly 3 years, where any
pre-trial applications (and there has been
notice of some) are set to be heard for
two weeks from 23 July 2018 followed
by a trial which is set for 4 weeks, is so
absurd that it invites a conclusion that the
Act was passed after 29 May 2018, not
with the legitimate objective of invoking
Some members of the Nauru 19 with their lawyers outside the Supreme Court in Yaren. Photos: Supplied a reasonable policy for legal aid in Nauru
consistent with limited funding here and
Nauru’s as its Appeals Court. It would establish its balancing the interests of all Nauruans,
own, Nauru added.
but to frustrate the defendants’ Notice of
A closer reading of Judge Muecke’s rul-
The judge said the new law could not be
ing reveals that the jurist had anticipated Motion that I am deciding.”
legal number 3 in his ruling reads: tent with the constitution of Nauru. The
the non-payment of the legal fees. Order
allowed to stand because it was inconsis-
“I order that the Republic of Nauru pay
whole of the Act he said, is inconsistent
into the Supreme Court of Nauru the sum with the provisions of the Nauru Constitu-
of $224,021.90, or such other sum as
wrangle may be agreed between the DPP and the for all Nauruans.
tion that deal with the protection of the law
defendants’ Australian legal team, by 5pm
“I would declare the Act wholly void.
Friday 29 June 2018, for and on behalf of
the legal fees and disbursements of the “I am not dealing with an amendment
defendants’ Australian legal team for the
trial in this matter, and for some fees and
By Samisoni Pareti disbursements already incurred. It invites the con-
“Failing compliance with Order 3, I shall
A huge legal battle looms in Nauru over consider ordering a stay of the defendants’ clusion that the Act
the trial of 19 people some of whom for- trial until Order 3 has been compiled
mer opposition parliamentarians with the with. … If the trial does not proceed on was passed .. to
Baron Waqa Government opting to appeal 23 July 2018, I shall hear any applica-
its Supreme Court ruling that the republic tion regarding the bail agreements of the
should foot the legal bill of the defendants. defendants.” frustrate the de-
In his landmark judgement on 21 Judge Muecke is reportedly pursuing
June this year, Supreme Court Judge this bail application hearing, together with fendants’ motion
Geoff Muecke of Australia ordered the a pre-trial application for stay of proceed-
Waqa Government to pay AU$224,021 ings, although the hearing date has been
(USD165,880) towards the expenses of pushed back to 30 July. to the Nauruan Constitution, nor am I
the four Australian-based lawyers of the Since the judgement, the 19 Nauruans dealing with the rules of Nauruan consti-
19 defendants. This money was to be paid have filed for a permanent stay on their tutional law. The Nauruan Constitution
to the Supreme Court of Nauru by 5pm on trial which was related to a protest outside expressly provides that a law (presum-
Friday, 29 June. the Nauru Parliament in 2015. Filed on ably of the Parliament of Nauru), is void
Nothing was paid by deadline however the final week of June, there was no of- if inconsistent with it. This court has the
with the government of Nauru exercising ficial response from the government until Constitutional power to declare a law void.
its right to appeal the Supreme Court’s 3 July when its official Twitter handle I consider that I should do so here.
decision. This means that the appeal announced that the Nauru Government “Judicial independence is vital to the
would have to be heard by the Court of would be appealing Supreme Court Judge upholding and the preservation of the Rule
Appeal of Nauru, a court that currently Muecke’s decision. of Law in this society. An impartial and
does not exist. His 21 June judgement has been de- independent judiciary keeps the Executive
In a surprise move earlier in the year, clared a landmark nevertheless because in and the Parliament within the bounds of
and following a secret pact with the gov- making his ruling, Judge Muecke defied a law. The effectiveness in securing the Rule
ernment of Australia, the Nauru Govern- last minute attempt by the Nauru Parlia- of Law depends on both the fact, and the
ment had announced that it would no ment to limit his powers in determining perception, of judicial independence.
longer uses the Supreme Court of Australia legal costs. The judge went so far as to “The independence and impartiality of

24 Islands Business, July 2018