From ABC Radio

It was expected to be one of the most explosive legal cases Papua New Guinea had seen for years. The elderly prime minister, Sir Michael Somare, was hauled before a specially convened tribunal to answer charges of official misconduct.



But compared to the political dramas that preceded it, the action in court turned out to be something of an anticlimax.

 

Just over a week ago Sir Michael Somare made his way into the Supreme Court building in Port Moresby flanked by several senior ministers. It was a day he'd fought long and hard to avoid, the first day of a specially convened leadership tribunal that will investigate charges of official misconduct.



He had waged a two-year legal battle against the investigation by PNG's corruption watchdog, the Ombudsman Commission. But now the tribunal would hear allegations the 74 year old failed to properly lodge more than a decade's worth of annual financial statements. 

It was also the culmination of several months of political drama.

Last December, as the public prosecutor moved to establish the tribunal, there was a snap cabinet reshuffle and a new deputy prime minister was appointed.

 There was speculation Sir Michael had moved to install a loyal deputy in the event he was forced to step down.

Then a few days later came the shock announcement he'd voluntarily stepped aside to allow the tribunal to investigate the allegations unhindered. But in January he returned to the prime minister's office saying he'd just been on holidays. 



Fast forward to the first day of the tribunal and Sir Michael had one last crack at shutting it down. His lawyer Ian Molloy unsuccessfully sought an adjournment, and then failed in an attempt to have the 25 charges dismissed because they were ambiguous.



The question many observers were keen to see answered was if Sir Michael had filed incomplete returns, or not filed them at all, what income and assets had he failed to declare? But the prosecution said it would only be relying on his correspondence with the corruption watchdog, and the returns he had filed to prove its case. That did not include an investigation into Sir Michael's finances to reveal any undeclared assets or income.



There was a touch of TV courtroom drama on day two when a breathless prime minister arrived late. After a few doses from an asthma puffer his head rolled back and he looked to be on the verge of collapsing. The proceedings came to a halt as several people crowded around the elderly statesman. But after a few sips of water he laughed off their concern and told the tribunal he was fit to continue. He's since taken to using a walking stick.



On day three Sir Michael took to the witness stand and maintained he had always filed his annual statements to the Ombudsman Commission. He said his only source of income for more than 40 years was his parliamentary salary and he hadn't declared it because the details were on the public record.



Sir Michael easily deflected the feeble questions from the seemingly inexperienced prosecutor Pondros Kaluwin. It was left to tribunal member Sir Bruce Robertson to ask the prime minister why he had not responded to reminders about incomplete or late returns. Again Sir Michael maintained he had always fulfilled his obligations under the country's leadership code.



The tribunal has adjourned to consider its decision. Other politicians found guilty of similar breaches have been punished with a small fine. If that happens in this case many will be asking what was the point of the whole exercise and Sir Michael's strenuous efforts to prevent the tribunal from sitting?