Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback High Court of Kiribati

Teannaki v Tito - certificate [1996] KIHC 2; HCCC 30.94 (28 February 1996)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF K RIBATI
HCCC 30/94

IN THE MATTER OF THE ELECTION OF:
The Beretitenti Act and

IN THE MATTER OF:
The Elections Ordinance and

IN THE MATTER OF:
The Election for the Beretitenti of the Republic of Kiribati

BETWEEN:

TEATAO TEANNAKI
Member of Parliament of and from Abaiang
Petitioner

AND:

TEBURORO TITO
Member of Parliament of and from South Tarawa and
Beretitenti of the Republic of Kiribati
Respondent

(BEFORE THE HON R LUSSICK C.J.)

To the Electoral Commission:

Certificate Under Section 36(3) of the Elections Ordinance Cap. 29B
(as applied by Section 16(1) of the Election of Beretitenti Act (Cap. 29A))

I, Richard Lussick, the Chief Justice of the Republic of Kiribati, certify that after hearing the petition of Teatao Teannaki I have determined that the Respondent, Teburoro Tito was duly elected as Beretitenti of the Republic of Kiribati in the election held on the 30th September 1994 and such election is accordingly confirmed.

Dated this 28th day of February 1996.

THE HON R B LUSSICK
Chief Justice

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KIRIBATI
HCCC 30194

BETWEEN:

TEATAO TEANNAKI

AND:

TEBURORO TITO

(BEFORE THE HON R LUSSICK C.J.)

Date: 22 January 1996

Court: Before the hearing of this election petition continues, I want to read in open court a letter which was delivered by hand to my Chambers on the 15th January, that is, on Monday of last week. The letter is from a Mr Taberannang Timeon, Member of Parliament for TabNorth, who writes on behalf of the Kiribati United Party.

The letter reads as follows:

"Kiribati United Party
c/- Maneaba ni Maungatabu
POBox52
Bairiki
Tarawa
15/1196

The Hon. Chief Justice

High Court Chambers

Betio

Dear Sir

On behalf of the Kiribati United Party I am writing to you to inform you of our deep disappointment for the further delay in the completion of the election petition by Mr Teatao Teannaki against the Beretitenti. With this letter I am enclosing a copy of the Party's press statement that was sent to Radio Kiribati last week for your information.

We want to let you know that we have no intention whatsoever to interfere with the independence of the judiciary. However, we strongly feel that the Government, and in particular the Beretitenti, is not giving the matter of the early conclusion of the above court case the high priority it deserves. The whole of Kiribati is anxiously awaiting for the decision of the Court whatever it might be. They deserve it and we respectfully ask you to expedite the process accordingly.

Yours faithfully

(Sgd) Taberannang Timeon

MP Tab North

PRESS RELEASE

The "Kiribati United Party" expressed its deep disappointment that the court case before the High Court between the member for Abaiang Mr Teatao Teannaki and the Beretitenti Hon. Teburoro Tito has to be postponed because the latter has to go to a meeting overseas.

The Party considers the early completion of the court case very important for the people of Kiribati. It has been delayed for too long and any further delay is not in the national interest. The Beretitenti could have been replaced at this meeting in Guam by one of his Ministers so that the court could have resumed its session on 8 January 1996 as earlier appointed by the Chief Justice.

Rairana

E kaota nanokawakina ae abwabwaki te "Kiribati United Party" n taonakin te kabowi imarenan te Tia Tei mai Abaiang Mr Teatao Teannaki ma te Beretitenti Teburoro Tito ibukin mwanangan te Beretitenti nako tinaniku.

N ana koaua te Bwatei ao e bon rangi ni kakawaki ibukiia kain Kiribati bwa e na tia te kabowi aei. E a tia n rangi ni wene maan ao kawaeremweana riki bon te bwai ae aki tamaroa ibukin te botannaomata. E bon kona te Beretitenti ni kanakoa onean mwina temanna ana Minita bwa e aonga ni wakinako te kabowi n taina are e motikaki mai iroun te Tia Moti ae Rietata are 8 Tianuare 1996".

One would think from this letter that the adjournment mentioned had caused an inordinate delay in the continuation of the hearing of the election petition, which commenced on the 4th December last year. In fact, the adjournment was only for two weeks to enable the respondent, who is the current Beretitenti, to attend the first-ever meeting of the Chief Executives of Micronesia in Guam. I might add that in granting the adjournment I ordered the respondent to pay the petitioner's costs thrown away by the adjournment and gave a warning that no further adjournment would be granted for any reason.

Now the United Party claims that they have no intention of interfering with the independence of the judiciary but, of course, that is exactly what the letter is calculated to do.

The United Party is letting me know that they did not like my decision to grant the adjournment. Because I did not decide in a way pleasing to them they have issued a press release and sent it to Radio Kiribati so that the whole nation will learn of their displeasure. I draw the inference that if I make any more decisions in this case with which the United Party does not agree then I can expect further press releases from them.

The letter goes on to attack the Government and the Beretitenti for their attitude to the case and then tells me what attitude the United Party wants me to adopt.

It is well known that this case is still in the course of hearing and that the substantive issues have yet to be decided. It is therefore most improper for a political party, or anyone else, to attempt to influence the judge by writing to him in this manner.

I want to make it perfectly clear that the views of a political party on how I should make my decisions are of no interest to me. My duty is to listen with an open mind and do justice to the best of my ability. This I have always done and will continue to do. No amount of pressure brought to bear upon the Court (which is what this letter is really all about) will persuade me to do otherwise. If in doing my duty I make a decision which is not acceptable to the United Party, or any other political party, then to me that is a matter of no consequence whatsoever.

I now intend to put the letter entirely out of my mind and get on with the hearing. My last word on the subject is that the United Party should obtain legal advice about the powers of the High Court before they attempt to approach me again.

THE HON R B LUSSICK
Chief Justice

(22/01/96)