Opposition MP and former Somare Minister, Belden Namah, has urged the Supreme Court, Public Prosecutor and the Ombudsman Commission to speed up the referral of Prime Minister Sir Michael Somare and his son, Public Enterprises Minister, Arthur Somare, who are both facing misconduct charges.

Namah says the referral of the father and son by the Ombudsman Commission involves two high profile state officials and is of national interest and the constitutional office holders are duty bound to ensure the cases were dealt with in a timely manner.

He stressed that the people of Papua New Guinea expected a speedier result of the court appeal by Sir Michael to stop the Ombudsman from investigating his misconduct charges relating to declaration of annual returns.

He pointed out that the case involving the Prime Minister went before the High Court in 2008, over two years ago.

Why has it taken the Supreme Court so long?

The public is becoming suspicious.

It is in the Supreme Court's interest to bolster the public confidence in the High Court

The Ombudsman Commission referred the Grand Chief to the Public Prosecutor for it to ask the Chief Justice to appoint a Leadership Tribunal to deal with the allegations, but Sir Michael went to court seeking orders to stop the investigation.

On June 24, 2008, National Court Judge, Justice Derek Hartshorn rejected an application by Sir Michael for a temporary injunction to stop the Ombudsman from investigating him.

When rejecting Sir Michael's temporary injunction, Judge Hartshorn ruled that it was not in the interest of the justice of the general public that lawful authorities should be prevented from performing their legal and constitutional duties.

The PM had gone to court asking the court to grant him certain declarations and a permanent injunction preventing the OC from continuing its investigations.

Sir Michael had contended that the OC lacked jurisdiction to continue the investigations and the conduct of their investigations was oppressive, subject to excessive delays and breached the rules of natural justice to act fairly reasonably and in good faith.

However, Judge Hartshorn in a seven-page decision, stated that Sir Michael did not have a strong case to stop the investigations.

 "It is not in the interest of justice or the public interest that lawful authorities should be prevented from carrying out their lawful investigations.

"Any such prevention should only occur in very clear cases of abuse," Judge Hartshorn stressed.

The judge was satisfied given the evidence before him that the PM's appeal was not serious and the Ombudsman be allowed to continue its investigations.

Effectively, the ruling meant that the Public Prosecutor could proceed to ask the Chief Justice to appoint a leadership tribunal to determine the charges against Sir Michael.

On June 30, 2008, the PM's lawyers refiled their appeal matter in the Supreme Court to be heard that afternoon.

The appeal matter related to the refusal of the National Court to grant an order restraining the OC from investigating the PM on an alleged breach of the Leadership Code.

PM's lawyers filed a notice of appeal basically appealing the whole of the judgment of Derek Hartshorn in dismissing their notice of motion.

In the notice of appeal,  they relied on seven grounds saying that in respect of each and every grounds, the National Court erred in the exercise of its discretion which if not overturned would result in the unlawful actions of an authority going unscrutinised by the court and causing serious injustice to the appellant.

The Supreme Court is yet to make a ruling of this matter.

Arthur Somare is also in trouble with the law and was referred by the Ombudsman Commission on February 28, 2006 to the Public Prosecutor for prosecution under the Leadership Code.

He was referred over allegation that he failed to give annual statements on time, that he misapplied his district support grant (DSG) funds and allegedly failed to acquit these funds' expenditure.

The Ombudsman alleges that K250, 000 of DSG was allegedly deposited into Somare's electorate trust account held at the ANZ bank in Port Moresby.

It is alleged that he then applied the funds in the form of unverifiable cash cheques to individuals; made cheque payment of various amounts for various activities; and made cheque withdrawals for which no details are available.

Despite Somare's assertion that he used for the purposes intended for under the relevant laws, the Ombudsman alleges that there appear to be cases where the MP has applied proceeds of the DSG to activities which the relevant guidelines specify as ineligible.

The Ombudsman has also stated that other payments do not have quotations, receipts, etc to ascertain credibility and genuineness in their applications.

"It appears that the leader applied public funds contrary to the relevant guidelines that provide for, among others, the prudent application and acquittal of these funds," the Ombudsman has stated.

It is also alleged that Somare failed without reasonable excuse to provide the watch dog organisation on time his annual statements which details of his assets, income, gifts, business interests and dealings and debts and liabilities. They are for the following periods: July 16 1998 to July 15 1999; July 15 1999 to July 15 2000; and July 16 2000 to July 16 2001.

Namah said that he was merely asking the Supreme Court, Public Prosecutors and the Ombudsman Commission to perform their constitutional duties and roles speedily in the public interest.

The constitutional office holders owe it to the nation and people to make an effort to decide in these cases in the national interest.

It is not our intention to interfere with the work of these important constitutional offices, but expect them to do their job speedily," he concluded.