by Ofani Eremae
The removal of former Malaita premier Daniel Suidani from his provincial seat in February 2023 was unlawful, a High Court judge ruled today.
And Justice Maelyn Bird said Rollen Seleso, then minister for Provincial Government and Institutional Strengthening, acted beyond his powers when he disqualified Suidani as Ward 5 member in the Malaita Provincial Assembly.
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.
Suidani refused to accept the switch and his MARA government banned China or any of its associates from entering Malaita and doing business there.
His anti-China stance put him in direct collision course with the Sogavare government, who accused him of defying the sovereign decision of the national government to recognise the one China policy, and colluding with Taiwan.
The Sogavare government further accused Suidani of making statements that incite disharmony and dissatisfaction against the national government with regards to the diplomatic switch.
But Suidani’s lawyer Gabriel Suri has argued that the Government failed to provide any evidence to back those accusations, and that Seleso acted beyond his powers when he removed Suidani from the Malaita Provincial Assembly.
He also pointed out to the court that the decision to disqualify Suidani was based on laws that were already repealed.
Justice Bird agreed.
“It is my considered view that any charge or allegation as in this case must have a legal basis,” the judge said.
“The legal basis of the charge or allegation against Suidani is based upon section 15 (I) (a) of the PGA (Provincial Government Act) 1997,” she added.
“That section, however, was repealed and replaced in 2018. The new section referred to section 49 (a) of the Constitution which is also non-existent.”
Justice Bird also highlighted in her ruling that sections 48 and 49 of the Constitution, which were used as legal grounds for Suidani’s removal, are only concerned about pre-election aspects of an election process.
“These constitutional provisions are not supposed to be applied in post-election stages.
“Any issues arising after election should be rightly left to the jurisdiction of this court under section 52 of the Constitution.”
Justice Bird ordered that all wages, allowances and other entitlements withheld from Suidani as a result of his unlawful removal must be paid to him.
But the judge refused to grant a request that Suidani be paid compensation for the international, regional and domestic embarrassment he suffered as a result of his disqualification.
“There is no evidence to show how Suidani was embarrassed and or harmed,” Justice Bird said.
Suidani was however awarded costs – meaning the Government will meet his legal expenses.