Judge rejects lawyer’s bid to withdraw from representing GE22 candidate

News that matter in Papua New Guinea

Judge rejects lawyer’s bid to withdraw from representing GE22 candidate

PORT MORESBY: The National Court has rejected lawyer John Napu’s application to withdraw from representing his client, Robert Agen (a National Capital District General Election 2022 candidate), who is charged with rape and assault.

Acting Judge Tracy Ganaii yesterday (July 18,2022) ruled that there was no legal basis (for the withdrawal).

“I do not see any legal basis for that,” she added.

Details of the court proceedings were reported by The National:

Court rejects Napu’s application

July 19, 2022The NationalNational

THE National Court has rejected a notice of application to cease to act filed by lawyer John Napu over a rape and assault case.
Acting Judge Tracey Ganaii made the ruling yesterday in Waigani saying that there was no legal basis.
“I don’t see any legal basis for that,” she said.
Acting Judge Ganaii said Napu had filed an application to withdraw from representing his client (Robert Agen) who is a National Capital District General Election 2022 candidate and wanted the court to give time so that he would file a Supreme Court reference for interpretations while another lawyer should represent Agen.
Acting Judge Ganaii said the State had objected the application to cease to act under grounds of professional conduct rule of every lawyer that the notice of ceasing to act at this stage was prejudicial to the administrative of justice; Napu would jeopardise his client’s case if he withdrew; and, the court could order Napu to continue representing his client.
“I reject this application because there is no proper affidavit material before me with the reasons to refer a question of law to the Supreme Court for the interpretation,” she said.
“Unlike in civil jurisdiction, any challenge to the internal (court) ruling in a criminal trial is considered after trial.
“Even if it is a challenge seeking the court’s (invocation) under Section 1552 of the Constitution.
“It appears to me that that is only available under the Supreme Court.
“Napu has not provided any legal basis for doing so, especially after the ruling of no case where he said the ruling was full of error.
“He has agreed with the ruling after a no case and he has not settled properly with basis that he wanted to seek interpretation from Supreme Court.
“I reject this argument as being baseless.”
Acting Judge Ganaii said whether its right or wrong, the court had ruled against further adjournment to allow time to file the Supreme Court application in the interest of justice.
“In my view, that is not a valid ground for counsel to cease to act,” she said.
“Any counsel chooses to represent a client, a competent counsel who is well vest with his legal obligation to his client, not only that but to the court, must be prepared for any circumstances between the time they rise to represent a client and throughout the proceedings with the view of ensuring that the trial is uninterrupted to the end.
“Counsel could have had another lawyer sitting between to assist, if it goes off the view that would come across the situation such as this.
“The application has not addressed the intended reasons why Napu should not act for his client, for example, there is no conflict of interest situation raised before me through affidavit evidence so that I will be convinced that Napu will not act in the best interest of his client that is not before me.
“This process must continue without further delay, I reject the cease to act and direct that the case continues tomorrow (Wednesday).”