Court upholds Daniel Kombuk’s suspension
News that matter in Papua New Guinea
Court upholds Daniel Kombuk’s suspension
PORT MORESBY: The National Court has dismissed suspended
Agriculture and Livestock Department secretary Daniel Kombuk’s application to
review his suspension for being abuse of the court’s process.
Kombuk’s application
challenged the National Executive Council’s July 22 decision to suspend due to
a criminal charge of misappropriation against him.
The National reported the court proceedings:
Kombuk’s application
dismissed
November 21, 2022The
NationalMain Stories
By BEVERLY PETER
THE National Court dismissed an application by suspended Agriculture and
Livestock Department (DAL) secretary Daniel Kombuk to review his suspension for
being an abuse of the court process.
Kombuk’s application challenged the National Executive Council’s (NEC) July 22
decision to suspend him due to a criminal charge of misappropriation against
him.
Judge Nicholas Miviri when dismissing the application at Waigani on Friday said
Kombuk’s application disclosed no reasonable course of action and was not
proper before the court.
“The evidence before the court shows that an administrative disciplinary
process has been set in place which would be completed with the decision now
pending in the hands of NEC, who will decide either to lift the suspension or
recommend termination.
“It means the suspension is not a final decision in the matter.
“And further, the related criminal proceeding in court is yet to be
determined,” Miviri said.
He said Kombuk was innocent until proven guilty but it was a serious allegation
to the office he held and hence he was suspended.
Miviri said Kombuk had explained in his response to then DAL minister John
Simon’s notice to show cause how he had dealt with the money (K30,000) he was
alleged to have misappropriated last year.
Miviri said Kombuk’s application was confused because his submission did not
point out a substantive notice of motion that set out the grounds and relief he
was seeking.
Miviri said the notice of motion stating the grounds of the appeal was not
brought to court’s attention.
“Kombuk’s lawyers never in the submission or argument referred to the notice of
motion and that is not enough to argue that this is a judicial review stamping
from an administrative decision.
“The argument must have the substantive notice of motion setting out what is
pleaded because that would be the jurisdictional basis for the court to draw to
make a decision on the facts to give effect to the remedies pleaded,” Miviri
added.
He said it was not court’s duty to bring the material on which the case was
made out of.
Comments
Post a Comment