by Ofani Eremae
Whilst the Government says its legal team is reviewing the Daniel Suidani court ruling with the intention to appeal, a local law expert and academic says an appeal may not be possible.
Solomon Islander Dr Joseph Foukona, an assistant professor at the University of Hawaii in the United States, said legally everyone has the right to appeal a court ruling.
But he said in the case of Suidani, what’s known in law as the “finality doctrine” may affect the Government’s right to appeal.
“In his case, Suidani sought relief from the High Court under section 16(2) of the Provincial Government Act 1997,” Foukona said.
“This legal provision incorporates the finality doctrine,” he added.
Foukona said section 16(2) explicitly states “A (Provincial Assembly) member whose seat has been declared vacant may, within 30 days, petition the High Court for relief from the declaration, and the decision of the High Court on such petition shall be final”.
He told In-depth Solomons the word “shall” is mandatory – meaning there is no room for “if” or “discretion” that would allow for an appeal.
“If a word like ‘may’ is in there, there could be an exception but the word ‘shall’ is there so this is mandatory,” Foukona, who previously taught law at the University of the South Pacific’s law school in Vanuatu, explained.
The Attorney General’s Chambers yesterday issued a statement saying its legal team is carefully reviewing the High Court ruling on the Suidani case
“A decision to appeal will be made upon assessing the various legal arguments outlined in the judgment,” the statement said.
“There is a time limit of 30 days from the date of the judgment for the filing of an appeal and any filing of an appeal must be made before the expiration of the Appeal time limit,” the statement added.
Suidani became premier after the 2019 provincial elections in Malaita – the same year former prime minister Manasseh Sogavare controversially switched the country’s diplomatic ties from the democratically-governed Taiwan to China.
He refused to accept the switch and his MARA government barred China or any of its associates from entering Malaita and doing business there.
His anti-China stance resulted in a stand-off with the Sogavare government, who accused Suidani of defying the sovereign decision of the national government to recognise the one China policy.
They also accused him of colluding with Taiwan.
Eventually, former minister for Provincial Government and Institutional Strengthening Rollen Seleso, in what Foukona described as a show of ministerial authority, instructed the Speaker of the Malaita Provincial Assembly, Ronnie Butala, to officially declare Suidani’s seat vacant in the Malaita Provincial Assembly.
Left with no other option, Suidani took the matter to the High Court, suing the Speaker (first respondent) and the Minister (second respondent).
His lawyer, Gabriel Suri, argued that the Speaker and the Minister acted beyond his legal authority in disqualifying Suidani under section 15(1)(a) of the Provincial Government Act 1997. Suri pointed out that this provision of the law was repealed by the Citizenship Act 2018 (No. 17 of 2018).
Justice Maelyn Bird agreed with Suri’s submissions, and ruled that Suidani’s removal was unlawful.