 |
| SI Prime Minister Gordon Darcy Lilo |
I am particularly interested in the argument puts forward by the former Prime Minister of SI and former Speaker of the Assembly, Sir. Peter Kenilorea, who, using his own experience, called for the embattled PM to step aside while the Leadership Code of Conduct (LCC) investigate his conduct.
First of all, our laws - correct me if I am wrong - don't spell out the word "cheating", nor the word "extramarital affair". These are implied "misconducts". Any move to boot Hon. Lilo off office will be based on the weight of the evidence and the interpretation of the word "conduct"- whether his actions aligned with the responsibility and integrity of the office he holds. Unless there's direct evidence of cheating, the case against him is simply weak. "Misconduct" is extremely vague; it resides in a vast room open to "personal interpretation" and the tendency for gross "misrepresentation". The burden of proof lies in the LCC and the Opposition to prove that the allegations of "misconduct" warranted the removal of the PM.
Secondly, the PM is not compelled by law, in my opinion, to resign. The issue of "misconduct" is no ground for the PM to step aside, nor should it hinder the PM from performing his national duties. Unless proven guilty, the PM is under no constitutional constraints to perform his duties in the middle of an active LCC investigation. To do so, in my opinion, is to render him "guilty" prematurely. Stepping aside would be a matter of personal decision as in the case of Sir. Kenilorea. His decision to step aside was his own decision, and if he did so to keep the "integrity" of the office (PM) and his own integrity, good on him! He became a strong leader then and now because of that decision he took. Again, it is a matter of personal decision. Stepping down (resign) maybe the best option for Hon. Lilo to consider, but he doesn't have to at this point as he isn't guilty until proven otherwise (yet).
Is it a constitutional problem? The allegation calls to attention Chapter VIII of our constitution, however, it is far from being a constitutional crisis. A constitutional crisis constitutes a deliberate violation of the "constitution" and a legal challenge to ensure constitutional authority is restored and the actors punished. In this case, the LCC is merely investigating the allegations to prove that they are true. Again, the LCC, under Chapter VIII - Leadership Conduct is compelled to react by way of an investigation. Their findings (evidence) are then handed to the appropriate bodies for proper execution and prosecution. As such, it is irrelevant at this point to force the PM out of office. Our system is based on so-called "innocent until proven guilty" - and one cannot ignore the importance of this slogan in favor of removing a perceived "guilty" person. Doing so would violate the rights of all accused to a fair trial.
In addition to that, Chapter VIII of our constitution broadly paints a "code of conduct" prescription for our leaders and with LCC as the interpreter of the codes. In that sense, the LCC is merely an "investigative commission"; it is a part of the Legislative branch and cannot in any way passing legal judgement, nor forcing someone [parliamentarians] out of office. It can investigate the conducts of the accused but doesn't have the legal authority - reserved for the Judiciary - to pronounce a leader "guilty or innocent". The LCC remains a "check and balance" commission, whose authority cannot supersedes the authority or power vested on the courts and the lawmaking body of the country - the Parliament. For instance, if LCC found the PM guilty of "misconduct", Section 95 of Chapter VIII calls for parliament to pass a supporting legislation giving the LCC's findings legal status - meaning the evidence found would be used as tools or means to remove the PM. The Opposition can then use these findings against the PM. The PM is then removed through the normal processes either through a "no confidence motion" or through the court system. Until then, the PM cannot be forced to either step down nor abandon his office, unless he exercised his own personal right to resign.
Finally, the special interest groups such as the Transparency International, the Media, and the Maasina Forum, do not have any legal authority whatsoever to force a sitting Prime Minister to step aside without the normal processes. They can only impact the process by assisting in the investigation, putting pressure on the government, protests, and engaging in "peaceful" demonstration. No public officer, PM, governor general etc. should be stepped aside based on mere "criticism" or because certain watchdogs believe he or she is guilty. Perception has no place in Democracy and the rule of law. As I said before, everyone is innocent until proven guilty, and all citizens of our country, like any democratic state in the Commonwealth of England, is entitled to a fair trial. Which means, outside forces can only activate the investigative process, and put pressure on concerned parties, but cannot use force to topple a government they don't agree with. When public pressure exceeds the bounds of national laws, it becomes a crisis - and when the public reached this point, every verbal threat can be construed as threat to national security. Attempting to remove the PM without the normal parliamentary and the judicial procedures is amount to treason. Because of that, all parties involved in this fight to unseat the PM should understand their constitutional limitations. Those who chose to pursue other means must know that they are flirting with the same actions that brought the country to its knees twelve years ago.
In 2000, after failing to topple the Ulufa'alu government, the Malaita Eagle Force stormed his office and forced him to resign, which he did. The government collapsed because a bunch of fools decided to take the laws into their own hands. Nations with citizens who don't tolerate the protocols of government, as sanctioned by the constitution, will always take the laws in to their own hands. This is why the Middle East cannot find any lasting peace to their sociopolitical woes - because people put themselves about the law of the land.
...........
Read more about the Saga
Opinion by Sir Kenilorea
PM Withdraws from LCC
No comments:
Post a Comment