Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback High Court of Solomon Islands

Regina v Keke [2005] SBHC 48; HCSI-CRAC 254 of 2004 (18 March 2005)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Criminal Case No. 254 of 2004

REGINA

–v-

HAROLD KEKE, RONNIE CAWA AND FRANCIS LELA

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
(KABUI, J.)

Dates of Hearing: 31^st January, 1^st, 2^nd, 3^rd, 4^th, 7^th, 8^th, 9^th, 10^th, 11^th, 14^th, 15^th, 16^th, 17^th, 18^th, 21^st, 22^nd, 23^rd, 25^th, 28^th February and 1^st, 2^nd, 3^rd, 8^th and 9^th March, 2005.

Date of Judgment: 18^th March 2005

R. Barry and H. Kausimae for the Crown
K. Averre for Harold Keke
M. Swift for Francis Lela
J. Godbolt for Ronnie Cawa

JUDGMENT

Kabui, ACJ. Harold Keke, Ronnie Cawa and Francis Lela are jointly charged with the murder of the late Father Augustine Geve contrary to section 200 of the Penal Code Act (Cap. 26) (the Code) at Haliatu village in the weather coast part of Guadalcanal on 20^th August, 2002. Each of them pleaded “not guilty” to the charge against them. There is reference in this judgment to a person called William Regge or Willie Suia. It is not disputed that he was the same person by these names but is now dead.

1. Who was Father Augustine Geve?

Father Augustine Geve was the deceased. He was an ordained Catholic priest who was democratically elected to be a member of the National Parliament in December, 2001 for the South Guadalcanal Constituency. He was the successful candidate who had the support of the Guadalcanal Liberation Front (GLF) led by Harold Keke and his men. He was one of the members of Parliament who was appointed a government minister in the government headed by Sir Allan Kemakeza, the Prime Minister. For that reason, he lived in Honiara following his appointment. He was a member of the Cabinet at the time of his death. He came from Raeavu village, some distance away from Haliatu village, where he met his death, both places being on the weather coast of Guadalcanal. He had been a sitting member of Parliament and a government minister for only eight months before he died. His death was a tragic event for the country for he was a government minister and an elected sitting member of Parliament. His death was a shock to the nation and rightly so because he was one of the leaders of the nation.

2. Harold Keke and his men.

Harold Keke was the leader of the GLF at the time Father Geve met his death at Hiliatu village. The Crown alleges that Ronnie Cawa and Francis Lela were Harold Keke’s consorts at the time of Father Geve’s death. Ronnie Cawa and Francis Lela joined the GLF towards the end of 1998 to fight for the rights of the people of Guadalcanal. Harold Keke was the man who went around the Island of Guadalcanal to mobilize the young people of Guadalcanal to fight the Government. Ronnie Cawa was the second in command in the GLF and the supreme commander of operations. He is the nephew of Harold Keke, being the son of Harold Keke’s sister. Harold Keke and Ronnie Cawa do have very close family tie. Francis Lela joined the GLF voluntarily to fight for the motherland and for the rights of the people of Guadalcanal. He describes himself as the gunman in the GLF serving under Ronnie Cawa in the chain of command within the GLF structure.

3. Father Geve’s visit to his Constituency.

Father Geve left Honiara on 16^th August 2002 for his constituency visit by out-board motor canoe. He reached his village of Raeavu on 18^th August 2002. His going to Raeavu was at the invitation of Harold Keke. Keke said in his evidence that he had sent a letter to Father Geve in Honiara asking him to come home to discuss certain things. Father Geve was a supporter of the GLF cause and for that reason he was voted into Parliament to advance the GLF cause there.

4. The burden of proof in criminal cases.

I must remind myself that the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt lies with the Crown. The Crown must prove beyond reasonable doubt that Harold Keke, Francis Lela and Ronnie Cawa killed Father Geve at Haliatu village on 20^th August otherwise I will acquit them on this charge of murder against them. The Crown had called thirty witnesses to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused.

5. The case for the Crown.

The case for the Crown is based upon direct evidence, that is, eye witness evidence, confessions and circumstantial evidence. The story began at Ngalipapa and finished at Inakona, both villages being situated in the Weather Coast on the Island of Guadalcanal.

6. The Ngalipapa meeting.

There was a meeting at Ngalipapa village on 19^th August 2002 when Father Geve was already in his village of Raeavu. Father Geve did not attend this meeting. The meeting had been called by Harold Keke. A lot of people from other villages attended that meeting at about 3am in the morning at the beach under a tree. Those who attended were chiefs, church leaders, militants and villagers. Only Harold Keke spoke at the meeting. He told the crowd what to say in respect of Father Geve at the next meeting to be called later that morning at Raeavu. The meeting was brief. Harold Keke closed the meeting with a prayer and it ended. Harold Keke denied that there was a meeting of this sort at Ngalipapa.

7. The Raeavu meeting.

The next meeting took place in Raeavu at about 8:00am that same morning. Those who attended the Ngalipapa meeting were also there with the villagers in Raeavu. Harold Keke was also there at that meeting. Father Geve attended this meeting. Those who attended that meeting more or less sat in a circle with Harold Keke and Father Geve being in the middle of the circle. Father Geve sat down whilst Harold Keke was on his feet next to Father Geve. Harold Keke did not have a gun but his boys did but stood some distance away amongst the crowd. Harold Keke then posed the same question he had asked the crowd at Ngalipapa village and expected an answer. The question was whether or not the people still wanted Father Geve to continue being a Member of Parliament for South Guadalcanal. Harold Keke asked the question twice but no response came from the people. He asked the question the third time in a threatening tone and there came the answer he wanted. The first Crown witness recalled the answer being, “We don’t want that con man”. The second Crown witness put it as “No, we do not want Geve because he is a con man”. The third Crown witness put the answer as, “We shouted, con man”. Or “We don’t want that con man”. The fourth Crown witness put the answer as, “We don’t want a con man”. The fifth Crown witness put the answer as “yes, we don’t want a con man”. The other Crown witnesses said more or less the same thing in terms of the crowd’s response to Harold Keke’s question. Harold Keke then turned to Father Geve and told him that the people had spoken and he must resign. Father Geve’s brother, Francis Laisa, (CW 6), recalled Harold Keke uttering these words in Pidgin English to Father Geve-

“Father, you stop long Parliament because me now payem fee belong you. You stop long Parliament for eight months. No any good someting you doim. Dis time me askem you for resign”. Translated into English means “Father, you are in Parliament because I had paid your fee. You have been in Parliament for eight months. You have done nothing good so far. Now, I am asking you to resign.” The crowd shouted back, “We don’t want this con man”.

Father Francis Lauvatu, (CW 30), gave a more descriptive evidence of why was Harold Keke told Father Geve to write a letter of resignation following the meeting at Raeavu. According to him, Harold Keke, in speaking at the meeting, accused Father Geve of being a bad man, an evil man and a liar who misused money. He asked the people what to do with Father Geve. One response was that Father Geve should be killed. Harold Keke said he was serious and asked again what to be done to Father Geve. There was silence for sometime. Then an oldman in the crowd stood up and said he had an idea, being that Father Geve should resign and should not be allowed to return to Honiara. Harold Keke then told Father Geve to write a letter of resignation. Harold Keke then gave Father Geve a piece of paper and Father Geve wrote the resignation letter then and there and gave it to Harold Keke who gave it to two Melanesian Brothers to take to Honiara and deliver it to the Prime Minister. There was also a table in the center of the meeting place. Father Francis Lauvatu’s evidence differs in these respects from the evidence of other Crown witnesses who said that Keke’s boys then escorted Father Geve to his brother’s house where he wrote a letter as demanded by Harold Keke. Father Geve having done that came down to the beach with Keke’s boys and they all went to Ngalipapa village. At Ngalipapa village, Harold Keke told Francis Laisa, (CW 6), that he was taking Father Geve to Haliatu village to look after Father Geve there not as his uncle but as his daddy poor or rich until his death. Francis Laisa (CW 6) then told Harold Keke that what he was doing was beyond his control but under Harold Keke’s control. Father Geve then left by another canoe, accompanied by Harold Keke’s boys and headed for Haliatu. Harold Keke denied some of the details of this meeting as told by Crown witnesses.

8. The resignation letter.

Melanesian Brother Dickson Pana, (CW 15) said that Harold Keke gave the resignation letter to him and Brother Nicholas Hou and told them to deliver it to the Prime Minister at Honiara. Brother Pana, (CW 15), put the letter in his bag and he and Brother Hou walked to Haliatu. They spent the night there in Silas’ house with Father Geve. In the morning, Harold Keke called them for breakfast and gave $100.00 each to cover expenses whilst in Honiara. Father Geve was not invited for breakfast. They left later that day on the MV. Iu Mi Nao for Inakona. Harold Keke denied all this in his evidence.

9. The decision to kill Father Geve.

According to Dickson Pana, (CW 15), the MV. Iu Mi Nao arrived at Inakona from Haliatu at about mid-day. She was anchored off Inakona for sometime to enable unloading of cargo to take place. In the meantime, he and Brother Hou went ashore on the invitation of Harold Keke. When they arrived at his house, they sat in the veranda of the house. Harold Keke was there. He told them that he was going back to Haliatu to see Father Geve. He told them to stay and have some food. Dyell Tati, (CW 16), was at the Raeavu meeting on 19^th August 2002. He was also at Haliatu on 20^th August 2002 but left on the MV. Iu Mi Nao for Inakona that same day. He helped to unload Keke’s cargo at Inakona from the MV. Iu Mi Nao. As he was doing that, someone called him on the beach to say that Harold Keke wanted to see him. Harold Keke was then standing on his veranda. Harold Keke then asked him to read a letter. The letter was addressed to the Prime Minister allegedly written by Father Geve. He read the letter to Harold Keke and to those who were present with them that time. The letter asked the Prime Minister to release into Father Geve’s account the sum of $39,000.00 for three micro-projects, being three clinics in the South Guadalcanal Constituency, plus some money to cover his travel expenses. Harold Keke’s reaction to the letter was aggressive. He said he was going to discuss the issues in the letter with Father Geve. He said that if Father Geve admitted it, he would be killed. He told Ronnie Cawa, Francis Lela and Ben Baku that they (with him) would go back to Haliatu. He said Ronnie Cawa should kill Father Geve. Then he changed his mind and said he would kill Father Geve himself. Harold Keke, Ronnie Cawa, Francis Lela, Ben Baku and Dyell Tati, (CW 16), then left for Haliatu by out-board motor canoe. Harold Keke was the driver. All of those on board carried guns except Dyell Tati, (CW 16). Ezekiel Sukulu, (CW 17), had also arrived at Inakona on the MV. Iu Mi Nao like Melanesian Brothers Dickson Pana, (CW 15), Nicholas Hou and Dyell Tati, (CW 16). He was also in Harold Keke’s house when Dyell Tati, (CW 16), read the letter to Harold Keke in the presence of Ronnie Cawa, Francis Lela and Ben Baku. Apart from the letter talking about money to be transferred into Father Geve’s account, it also said that Father Geve wanted to go to Honiara but was unable to do so because Harold Keke confined him. On hearing the content of the letter, Harold Keke got cross. He told Ronnie Cawa that they were trying to look after Father Geve and yet he did that to them, meaning, telling the Prime Minister that he was being confined by Harold Keke and his men. He said the man was an evil man and he should be killed. Harold Keke told those in his house to wait for them until they had gone to kill Father Geve before they could leave the house. Then Harold Keke, Ronnie Cawa, Francis Lela, Ben Baku and Dyell Tati, (CW 16), left in a boat to see Father Geve. Silas Kaki, (CW 19), said that before Harold Keke and his boys left Inakona, Harold Keke said that they were going to kill Father Geve. He said Harold Keke and his boys were armed with guns when they left Inakona in the easterly direction. In cross-examination, Sukulu said that after Dyell Tati, (CW 16), read the letter, Harold Keke said Ronnie Cawa should punch Father Geve and then changed his mind. He said the letter was read twice, the first was when they were by themselves and the second when the Melanesian Brothers arrived from the MV. Iu Mi Nao. Harold Keke denied this except that he went to Haliatu but when he got there Father Geve was already dead.

10. Keke’s return to Haliatu in the afternoon on 20^th August 2002.

Keke and his men arrived at Haliatu and went ashore opposite Buabua village next to Haliatu. Dyell Tati said that he went to collect his clothes at Mrs. Keke’s house at Buabua whilst Keke and his men went to speak to Father Geve at Haliatu. Whilst at Buabua, he heard the sound of gun shots. There were several shots, fired at least twice. He returned to the canoe on the beach and not long afterwards, he saw Harold Keke, Ronnie Cawa, Francis Lela and Ben Baku return to the canoe. Harold Keke was holding a brief case. On his way back to the canoe after the gun shots, he met Willie Regge running. Willie Regge told him that Father Geve was dead. The canoe left Haliatu as soon as Harold Keke and his boys arrived back on the beach. Dyell Tati, (CW 16), said that he saw the brief case brought by Harold Keke being placed in the cabin of the canoe as they were heading back to Inakona. Jessy Rickson, (CW 8), saw Father Geve’s brief case being carried away by Harold Keke’s boys at Raeavu after writing the letter of resignation. This is confirmed by James Laisa, (CW 9), who took it from Harold Keke’s boat with Harold Keke’s permission at Ngalipapa to give it to Father Geve. James Laisa, (CW 9), must have returned the brief case to where he had removed it. Benjamin Ngaovaka, (CW 7), said that he was in Willie Suia’s house when he heard two gun shots in Haliatu. Willie Suia went out first to investigate. Dyell Tati’s (CW 16), evidence confirms this because he said he met William Suia running and telling him that Father Geve was dead. Three to four minutes later, Benjamin Ngaovaka, (CW 7), followed a path that leads on to the beach. He stood at the bottom of a koilo tree where he saw Willie Suia standing in the center of the beach sort of walking around. Upon being seen by Benjamin Ngaovaka, (CW 7), he signaled Benjamin Ngaovaka, (CW 7), to go to him. As they were talking, Benjamin Ngaovaka, (CW 7), saw Harold Keke and Ronnie Cawa walking towards their canoe on the beach. This again is confirmed by Dyell Tati, (CW 16), when he said whilst waiting near their boat, he saw Harold Keke, Ronnie Cawa, Francis Lela and Ben Baku arrive and they pushed off in their canoe and left Haliatu. Benjamin Ngaovaka, (CW 7), confirmed that Harold Keke was carrying a gun. Ronnie Cawa was also carrying a gun. Both guns, each was carrying looked like SLRs. The canoe, he said, pushed off and Harold Keke and his men left Haliatu. The other men wore masks and so could not be identified. He said Willie Suia told him that there had been trouble. He said that Willie Suia asked him to return the body of Father Geve to his village at Raeavu. He said they walked further down the beach towards the sea and he saw the dead body of Father Geve lying down on his side facing up with his head pointing towards the sea. He said Willie Suia also gave him a one page letter to read to the people at Raeavu when Father Geve’s dead body arrived there. He said that on his return from Raeavu, he gave the letter back to Willie Suia.

11. Identification of Harold Keke at Haliatu.

Dyell Tati, (CW 16), and Benjamin Ngaovaka, (CW 7), clearly confirmed that Harold Keke was at Haliatu on 20^th August 2002. They confirmed that shots had been fired; following which Father Geve was found dead. Anglican Father Francis Lauvatu, (CW 30) was also at Haliatu on 20^th August 2002. He said he walked past Father Geve on his way to the church. He said Father Geve then was sitting under a koilo tree with some people. He said that on his way back, he decided to sit down to the left of the koilo tree but some distance away at point A as shown in Exhibit 16. Whilst there, he saw Harold Keke and his boys arrive by boat. They were carrying guns. He could not say how many boys there were with Harold Keke. He said Harold Keke and his boys walked up to Father Geve who was then sitting under the koilo tree. He said he saw some people in the village retreated. He then moved closer to point B as shown in Exhibit 16. He said Harold Keke and his boys reached Father Geve at the bottom of the koilo tree and Harold Keke spoke to Father Geve and kicked Father Geve with his left leg somewhere on his lower ribs. It was not a big kick. Harold Keke then ordered Father Geve to go down to the beach. Some distance from the koilo tree towards the beach at point C as shown in Exhibit 16, Harold Keke showed Father Geve a letter and said he would shoot Father Geve. Harold Keke ordered Father Geve to go down to the beach, saying, “go, go, go”. Harold Keke told Father Geve that he was a rubbish man. Harold Keke turned to the villagers and said nothing would hide from him as God would show him everything or something to that effect. As Harold Keke and Father Geve were moving down from point C to D, a Melanesian Brother intervened and suggested that they negotiate, which offer was refused by Harold Keke. Harold Keke then told Father Geve to say his last prayer. Father Geve said he had already said his prayer. Harold Keke told Father Geve that he would shoot him. Father Geve then told Harold Keke that even if he tried to explain things to Harold Keke, he would not understand them nor follow them. Father Geve told Harold Keke to do what he wanted to do. They continued talking and Harold Keke shot Father Geve at point D as shown in Exhibit 16. He said he heard the first shot and saw Father Geve leaning as though telling Harold Keke to shoot him in the head or something. He said that after that he heard another shot. Then he saw Father Geve’s body on the ground. Harold Keke denied this.

12. Keke’s return to Inakona after Father Geve’s death and his admission of responsibility for Father Geve’s death.

Keke and his party arrived back at Inakona and went ashore on the beach and pulled the canoe up the beach. Keke uttered words to the effect that Father Geve was dead. Keke went to his house where the Melanesian Brothers were waiting and then went behind his house. He joined Ronnie Cawa, Francis Lela and Ben Baku where shots were heard being fired into the air. Ezekiel Sukulu, (CW 17), said that he was at Inakona when Harold Keke and his party arrived on the beach. He saw Harold Keke showing a sign with his finger across his neck. Harold Keke and the other members of his party then went to the grave site and shots were heard being fired into the air. Harold Keke returned to his house and showed those inside the house Father Geve’s brief case. He said he was honest and his nephew had made a mistake and he shot him. Harold Keke opened Father Geve’s brief case and inside it were the following items, a mirror, a comb, a small towel, a photo and a passport. Harold Keke said that the passport belonged to the con man using it to travel to any part of the world. Moses Tataga, (CW 5), said he was at Inakona when Harold Keke and his boys arrived at Inakona in the afternoon. They were carrying guns including Harold Keke. He said that he saw Harold Keke left the boat and walked off. He then heard Harold Keke saying aloud that he had “off” the evil leader. In common Pidgin English parlance, this meant that he had put off the evil leader or more plainly, killed the evil leader. Silas Kaki, (CW 19), said that he was at Inakona when Harold Keke and his boys arrived back at about 4pm. He said he saw Harold Keke and his boys walked up to the grave site. He said he heard Harold Keke saying in Pidgin English, “Me offem the evil leader” which in English, means, “I have put off the evil leader”. Dyell Tati, (CW 16), confirmed this. Harold Keke then said that Father Geve was his own nephew and he did what he did so that people would see that work on the island should go straight or something to that effect. Dickson Pana, (CW 15), said that he was in Harold Keke’s house at Inakona when Harold arrived back from Haliatu. He said Harold Keke came into the house holding a gun and a brief case. Harold Keke told them in the house that he had killed the member and showed them Father Geve’s brief case and then put it down. He said that he and Brother Hou then left Inakona on the MV. Iu Mi Nao for Honiara. When they arrived at Honiara they gave the Prime Minister Father Geve’s resignation letter and told the Prime Minister that Father Geve was already dead saying that Harold Keke had told them to tell that to him, the Prime Minister, if asked. Harold Keke denied this.

13. Harold Keke’s further admission for being responsible for the death of Father Geve.

In the afternoon of 21^st August 2002, Nathaniel Supa, (CW 20), of the National Peace Council (the NPC) received a call from Harold Keke wanting to speak to him. Harold Keke’s call sign was 00 on the Guadalcanal Province frequency. When asked by Mr. Supa, (CW 20), for the message he wanted to pass on to him, Harold Keke said he had killed Father Geve. Mr. Supa recognised the voice to be that of Harold Keke. Harold Keke said he had killed Father Geve with five rounds. He said the people had agreed. He said Father Geve was an evil leader and that was why he killed him. He said money for his constituency had not reached his people. Also, he said Father Geve was keeping a lady in the Honiara Hotel. Asked whether it was possible to secure the dead body of Father Geve for a State Funeral, he said, “No way”. He then told Mr. Supa to connect him to Solomon Islands Broadcasting Corporation (SIBC) which Mr. Supa did. Walter Nalangu, (CW 22), of SIBC then tuned into the Guadalcanal Province frequency on call sign 00 and spoke to Harold Keke on the radio. He recognised Harold Keke’s voice. Harold Keke said that Father Geve had lied to the women and children of the Weather Coast and had to resign. Asked why Father Geve had to resign, Harold Keke said Father Geve was dead. Asked how Father Geve died, Harold Keke said Father Geve died from five rounds-live ammunitions. Harold Keke repeated that Father Geve had lied to the women and children in Guadalcanal Province. He said that a letter was found inside the suit-case belonging to Father Geve which asked the Prime Minister for money which did not reach the people. Superintendent Mosese, (CW 23), of the Royal Solomon Islands Police (RSIP) was also trying to confirm unconfirmed rumours that Father Geve had died in the Weather Coast on Guadalcanal. He was eventually able to speak with Harold Keke on the police radio at Rove Police Headquarters. He recognised Harold Keke’s voice. He told Harold Keke that the Police were trying to confirm rumours that Father Geve had been shot somewhere on the Weather Coast. Harold Keke said it was the case that Father Geve had died. He said he killed Father Geve as the Father did not deserve to live. Harold Keke said that they had opened Father Geve’s brief case and found inside it money and things belonging to his people in the Weather Coast. Harold Keke said that Father Geve stole money for projects in his constituency. Harold Keke said there was no need for him and his people to have a sitting Member of Parliament anymore. Sergeant Chris Tovoa, (CW 24) said that Harold Keke was his uncle. He was the radio operator who contacted Harold Keke for Superintendent Mosese, (CW 23). He said he recognised the voice of Harold Keke as they both grew up together in the same village in the Weather Coast. Harold Keke denied speaking to anyone on the radio except that he had spoken on the radio to Sergeant Chris Tovoa and told Sergeant Chris Tovoa that Father Geve was dead.

The foregoing is the combined evidence of the Crown witnesses elicited by the Crown against Harold Keke, Ronnie Cawa and Francis Lela.

14. The case for the defence.

Harold Keke did give sworn evidence in his own defence. He called no other witnesses. Ronnie Cawa also did the same. He too called no other witnesses. Francis Lela decided to say nothing and remained silent. Harold Keke said in evidence that he did not kill Father Geve. He said other persons killed Father Geve. Ronnie Cawa said the same, that is, other persons killed Father Geve.

15. The credibility of witnesses.

In so far as Harold Keke is concerned, his stand that he is innocent of the murder of Father Geve as against the evidence of the Crown witnesses places me in the position of having to decide who were telling the truth in the trial. The question of the credibility of Harold Keke, Ronnie Cawa and Francis Lela and the relevant Crown witnesses therefore becomes important, if not decisive, in this case. There is no other way in which the guilt or otherwise of Harold Keke can be determined. Mr. Barry for the Crown was right when he stated in his closing remarks that the issue was whether the witnesses were telling the truth about the actions of accused. Counsel for Harold Keke, Mr. Averre with the support of Counsel for Ronnie Cawa Mr. Godbolt and Counsel for Francis Lela, Miss Swift, quickly zeroed in on this point and attacked the credibility of the Crown witnesses, particularly, Father Francis Lauvatu, (CW 30), who gave direct evidence which links up with those who gave circumstantial evidence and to whom Harold Keke made confessions. This argument concerns the weight the Court should place on or attach to the evidence of the key Crown witnesses. The weight of evidence is the assessment the Court makes of the evidence in terms of its quality in tending to prove the facts in issue. The assessment of weight for that matter depends on many factors but which include other evidence given and the behaviour of the witnesses who gave evidence in court. To say that any evidence lacks weight does not mean that the evidence is the subject matter of perjury, dishonesty or exaggeration. Such evidence would of course lack weight but evidence can also lack weight if the witness’ recollection has failed him or her, or no opportunity existed to allow the witness to perceive the facts in issue or his or her knowledge of the facts is inadequate etc. Any other evidence which does not afford the court assistance it needs in relation to the facts in issue would likewise be unreliable evidence. (See pp. 15-16 of A practical approach to EVIDENCE by Peter Murphy, 1992, Fourth Edition). Counsel attacked the credibility of the key witnesses for the Crown on two grounds. First, the evidence given was marred with internal contradictions. Second, there had been inconsistent statements, contrary to the evidence given in Court. Both these characteristics, argued Counsel, would render the evidence given by Crown witnesses inconsistent in character and thus questioning the credibility of the key witnesses for the Crown who gave evidence. One consequence is that the witnesses are unreliable and so it follows that the evidence given is unreliable and the Court should place no weight on that evidence.

16. Contradictions in the evidence of key Crown witnesses.

Counsel for Harold Keke, Mr. Averre, led the attack with the support of Counsel for Ronnie Cawa, Mr. Godbolt and Counsel for Francis Lela, Miss Swift, in discrediting the key Crown witnesses in respect of their clients. Of great concern to them is the credibility of Father Francis Lauvatu, (CW 30) who was the only eye witnesses to the killing of Father Geve by Harold Keke. Their concern arose because of internal contradictions in his evidence. Their criticism of the evidence was that the witness appeared to be selective in what he could recall of the events at Haliatu on 20^th August 2002, thus appearing to be leaving out some things which did not suit the Crown case and making up things as he went along in his evidence. It is not disputed that the Police obtained a statement from him only on 4^th February 2005 after the trial had commenced. He said the Police had looked him up and he gave his statement to the Police. The Crown introduced this witness under section 264 of the Criminal Procedure Code Act (Cap. 7) (the CPC) as is permissible under the law. Nothing turns on that step being taken by the Crown and is of no consequence. The fact that the Crown did not call other relevant Crown witnesses listed on the back of the information had been explained by Mr. Barry for the Crown. That is, the witnesses could not be located by the Police since the start of the trial. They are probably in the Weather Coast on the other side of the Island of Guadalcanal. This was not an ordinary trial of ordinary civilians accused of killing Father Geve. The accused are members of the GLF and the non-attending witnesses may not wish to give evidence against the accused who were once comrades-in-arms. There was nothing the Crown could do about that fact. The Crown did not call them for that reason and the matter ended there. That is, nothing turns on the fact that the Crown had decided not to call John Tova, Paul Nare, Ben Issac Baku and Atban Seti if they were the ones being referred to by the Defence. If they were crucial Crown witnesses, their unavailability to give evidence for the Crown would surely weaken the Crown case. That would have been welcome news for the defence for obvious reason. The weaker the Crown case became, the better it was for the defence. The calling of Father Francis Lauvatu, (CW 30), seen by the Defence, as a substitute eye witness in the last minute, cannot be criticized by the Defence as something uncalled for in the trial and should be scrutinized by the Court. However, there is the proposition that the Crown had invented last minute evidence by calling Father Francis Lauvatu, (CW 30), to give devastating evidence against Harold Keke, Francis Lela and Ronnie Cawa. The only way to neutralize this witness is to discredit him as being untruthful and ask this Court to rule him out as a witness of truth. This is undoubtedly the aim of the Defence’s argument against this witness. It is not disputed that Father Francis Lauvatu, (CW 30), is also from the Weather Coast and an Anglican priest there at the time of the death of Father Geve. He did explain in his evidence that he was non-partisan in the conflict in the Weather Coast and felt that it was not an obligation on his part to voluntarily tell the Police that he was an eye witness to Father Geve’s murder on 20^th August 2002. The Defence were somewhat surprised that the witness took that view. I am not surprised. It is expected that some people would do that because of personal reasons in view of the warring parties in the Weather Coast at that time involving the same communities and the same people. Being non-partisan also had its disadvantage in that one could be easily accused of being an informer for the other side. For some, it is a question of balancing the advantages and disadvantages against each other for being non-partisan in the communities in the Weather Coast at that time. Father Francis Lauvatu, (CW 30) obviously found himself in that position, though as an Anglican priest the church policy, as it seemed, was to remain calm and to be impartial as a church priest. Harold Keke had enemies in the Weather Coast and for those were not partisan to the warring sides, it was safe for them to be silent or non-committal. It is safer for potential witnesses to be silent if the Police are not on their heels. I am certain that Father Francis Lauvatu, (CW 30) would not have spoken of Father Geve’s murder in public if RAMSI had not come to Solomon Islands and had not asked him about it for obvious reason. I am sure that it is possible to assume at this stage that a lot more persons saw who killed Father Geve but do not wish to tell the Police for personal reasons. I say this because killing a person in a village like Haliatu with shots fired from a gun or guns was bound to be seen by the villagers. Such event would have attracted attention and caused much curiosity unless the villagers had been threatened and fled before Father Geve was shot. When one looks at the answer Ronnie Cawa gave in answer to questions 329 and 330 in his interview, I am not far from being correct in that assumption. The same is true of the answer given to question No. 73 in Francis Lela’s third interview at the Iron Bottom Sound premises. The fact is that many people at Haliatu saw when Father Geve was shot. The fact that he could not recall what time he left Kolina for Haliatu, who owned the boat he was travelling in, who were the other passengers on the boat and how long the boat trip took to reach Haliatu, are matters of detail which he forgot. The fact that he did not meet any other persons on the beach at Haliatu though he knew Willie and yet did not know whether Willie had a brother and the fact that Benjamin Ngaovaka, (CW 7) did not meet him are of no significance as well. He did explain in cross-examination that he did know someone called Willie and Benjamin Ngaovaka, (CW 7), but did not know whether the two men were brothers. He said he did not know their relationship. It is significant to note that he left the scene when Father Geve was on the ground and he saw no more of anything. Benjamin Ngaovaka, (CW 7), said that he reached the koilo tree and then went down to Willie Suia and both walked down and saw Father Geve lying on the beach. By that time, Father Francis Lauvatu, (CW 30), would have left already to the house where he was staying. He could not have met Benjamin Ngaovaka, (CW 7), at all for that reason although he knew Benjamin Ngaovaka, (CW 7). The fact that he forgot to mention in his evidence in chief that a boat had arrived at Haliatu earlier about an hour with two Melanesian Brothers before Harold Keke and his boys arrived at Haliatu and the fact that he could not describe the boat and identified the two Melanesian Brothers on that boat can be explained. He said the two Melanesian Brothers came to him at point A where he was sitting and when he refused to go with them, they left in their boat for Inakona. They had come to ask him to go and witness something at Inakona. It must be the case that he did not know them by name. It is an assumption to suggest that the two Melanesian Brothers were from his household at Kolina and should have known them and yet he said he did not know them. It was not put to him in cross-examination that the two Brothers were from his household at Kolina though he was asked that he would have known the Brothers in the Kolina household and he said yes. He was also not able to identify the Melanesian Brother who tried to suggest negotiation with Harold Keke which Harold Keke refused to accept. He said he was confused because other Melanesian Brothers had also arrived by the MV. Iu Mi Nao. It is also an assumption to expect Father Francis Lauvatu, (CW 30), to know all the Melanesian Brothers who were operating in the Weather Coast that time except those in the household at Kolina. There is no evidence to confirm that he knew all the Melanesian Brothers in the Weather Coast area at that time by name except by their uniform. There is no evidence to suggest positively that other Melanesian Brothers in Haliatu, if there were any, or the Melanesian Brothers who had come before Harold Keke and his boys arrived, were from the household at Kolina. He said he did not know them. It is a further assumption to say that they were from the household at Kolina where he was based. The issue remains an open question at this stage. The fact that he was unable to say whether Harold Keke got off his boat or the boat was pulled up ashore and could not say the exact number of boys with Harold Keke cannot be held against him. He explained that whilst at point A, he saw Harold Keke’s boat passed him. He saw Harold Keke and his boys in that boat. However, he said he did not see the boat or how Harold Keke and his boys disembarked on the beach at Haliatu. At that point, Mr. Averre suggested to him that he was not sure that Harold Keke in the boat moved across the beach at Haliatu. That question was not interpreted and had to be repeated by Counsel. The repeated question was that he was not sure whether he saw Harold Keke went across in his boat but saw Harold Keke when he was on the beach to which he gave an answer in the affirmative. He was clearly confused by repeated questioning. My understanding of his first answer to the preceding questions in cross-examination was that he saw Harold Keke and his boys passed him at point A but did not see where the boat stopped on the beach until he saw Harold Keke and his boys walking up towards Father Geve sitting under the koilo tree. That was what he saw from point A where he was in the first place. This is why he was not able to say how Harold Keke’s boat came ashore and how Harold Keke and his boys disembarked on the beach. That is understandable because he did not see them as they were disembarking and began to walk up the beach. He did not first see them at that point. The respective positions of Harold Keke and Father Geve under the koilo tree when Harold Keke kicked Father Geve is of no significance because he was obviously looking at Harold Keke with Harold Keke’ back facing him. He obviously saw Father Geve trying to get his slippers on but was not sure whether this was before or after Harold Keke kicked Father Geve. The reason why he did not see anyone else with Father Geve under the koilo tree or near it when Harold Keke and his boys were approaching Father Geve could be that anyone there had moved away on seeing Harold Keke approaching. It is common sense for anyone to do that in view of perceived impeding danger to himself or her. Harold Keke and his boys were armed with guns at that time and were approaching Father Geve. In fact, in cross-examination on that point, his answer was that he was not looking for specific people under the koilo tree. The fact that he could not see Harold Keke shoot but only because Harold Keke pointed his gun at Father Geve was because Harold Keke’s back was towards him at point B but he did see Father Geve leaned forward after the first shot and saw Father Geve on the ground after the second shot and then he left the scene. The fact that he did not see anyone else on the beach and could not remember about his sleep is of no consequence. The fact that he did not remember talking to the Police in October, 2003 at the Church of the Good Shepherd in Gela about the death of Father Geve is true but he said the Police had come to ask him about Melanesian Brother Sado. The fact that he did not tell them about who killed Father Geve is irrelevant though Mr. Averre would have expected him to do so. His evidence about the details of the Raeavu meeting is also a matter of concern by the Defence because he revealed details that the other attendees who gave evidence as Crown witnesses in the trial did not say. It is true that the suggestion that Father Geve should resign from being a sitting Member of Parliament had come from an old man in that meeting and the suggestion to kill Father Geve were matters that the other Crown witnesses who also attended that same meeting did not recall. They also did not recall that there was a table placed in the middle of the meeting and Father Geve wrote the resignation there and gave it to the two Melanesian Brothers in an envelope. I accept these contradictions but one must remember that in typical village meetings, one only hears what others next to him are saying and people do not behave like students in a classroom where everybody is seated before the teacher comes into the class. The center of attention was of course Harold Keke and what the other Crown witnesses said in evidence is what they were able to recall in a general way without exact details. What is recalled and its accuracy depends on one’s level of concentration and attention at the relevant time. The fact that Father Francis Lauvatu, (CW 30), could recall some details unlike others proves nothing in that context. On this point, Harold Keke in cross-examination by Mr. Barry did confirm that one old man stood up with others as well, all calling for the resignation of Father Geve. The meeting at Raeavu took place on 19^th August 2002, a long time ago. The matter of where the resignation letter was written is interesting. According to Jessy Rickson, (CW 8), she gave an envelope to Father Geve in her father-in-law’s house at Raeavu after the meeting and Father Geve was seen to write. I think Father Francis Lauvatu’s (CW 30), recollection falters here because from the evidence of other Crown witnesses, Father Geve wrote the letter in Francis Laisa’s house before they went to Ngalipapa. Lapse of memory does account for errors of this sort. However, there is no evidence to say who gave the paper to Father Geve, certainly not Jessie Rickson for she gave him an envelope only and nothing else. It appears that Father Geve was already in possession of the paper and only asked for an envelope. The paper could have come from his brief case or that Harold Keke gave it to him at the meeting like Father Francis Lauvatu, (CW 30), recalled. There might indeed have been a table in the middle of the meeting but because it was not used by Father Geve to write the resignation letter, it was not mentioned by other Crown witnesses. The existence of the table and its whereabouts is not impossible in this case. It is not unusual that a chair and table are provided at village meetings such as the Raeavu meeting when big men are attending or are coming to speak or listen to the people. This is the usual practice in the villages in rural areas. The point about telling the Police that he saw Ronnie Cawa at Haliatu and then correcting that later is of no significance. These contradictions were highlighted by the Defence to suggest that Father Francis Lauvatu as a witness for the Crown should not be believed and therefore his evidence is unreliable and must be disregarded. Apart from citing these inconsistencies in his evidence and as compared with the evidence of other Crown witnesses, the Defence did not suggest why Father Francis Lauvatu, (CW 30), should be lying to this Court. Did he have an axe to grind? I can think of none. As an Anglican priest, he was supposed not to take sides with any of the warring parties in the Weather Coast. I do not think he is an unreliable witness simply on the basis that there are a number of contradictions in his evidence and as compared with the evidence of other Crown witnesses. Contradictions are bound to crop up after lapse of time as memory lapses. This is not unusual where trial takes place long after the event. The next Crown witness under attack is Dyell Tati, (CW 16). The most significant criticism of his evidence is that he gave evidence part of which were inconsistent with his previous statement to Superintendent Stafford on 12^th October 2003. This is not a matter of internal contradiction in his sworn evidence. I will deal with this under the heading of “previous inconsistent statements”. The next Crown witness under attack was Ezekiel Sukulu, (CW 17). Again, the main criticism of his evidence was that he made corrections to his first statement he gave to the Police on 15^th August 2003 by correcting the venue of the meeting from Inakona to Raeavu and that Dyell Tati, (CW 16), read the letter at Inakona. I will deal with this later under the heading of “previous inconsistent statements”. The other Crown witness under attack is Benjamin Ngaovaka, (CW 7). The main criticism of his evidence was that he was not able to see the other boys who had come with Harold Keke, apart from identifying Harold Keke and Ronnie Cawa, because they wore masks. The other criticism is that he was unable to say whether those inside the boat carrying the dead body to Raeavu were carrying guns apart from Steve Pitipisi from Marau. There were John Tova, Ataban Seti, Steve Pitipisi, Silas Vekeni, Paul Nare, Benjamin Ngaovaka, (CW 7) and the dead body of Father Geve inside the boat. Only Steve Pitipisi, the man from Marau, was carrying a gun. Andrew Matachichi was not inside the boat but was seen at Raeavu also. The Crown witnesses from Raeavu said others who had come with the dead body also had guns, besides Steve Pitipisi. As to the number of persons with guns on the boat, it is the word of Benjamin Ngaovaka, (CW 7), against the words of the Crown witnesses from Raeavu. If trouble was expected at Raeavu on the arrival of Father Geve’s body or general security required guns, guns would have been carried for obvious reason. There is no evidence to prove either case. The issue arises only in the context of determining the credibility of this witness otherwise it is one that arose after the murder had take place and is irrelevant to identifying the killers of Father Geve. Similarly, the issue of wearing masks or not by the other men with Harold Keke, apart from Harold Keke and Ronnie Cawa arises only in the context of witness credibility otherwise it is not fatal to identification of those in Harold Keke’s party that left Inakona to Haliatu as it is not disputed that Francis Lela and Ben Baku were the other two men besides Harold Keke and Ronnie Cawa. However, Counsel’s concern was that such inconsistencies did point to a general lack of credibility of the witness. These Crown witnesses had, indeed, in their evidence, contradictions. These contradictions are explainable and I have done that on the basis and the in context of answers given to the questions asked by the Defence in cross-examination. As to contradictions with other Crown evidence, such are minor and of no real value to the defence. Despite these contradictions, the above Crown witness gave their answers in a straight forward manner without evading or showing hostile attitude towards the defence under cross-examination. The fact that questions on the same issues in cross-examination by Counsel for Harold Keke tended to be repeated by Counsel for Ronnie Cawa and Counsel for Francis Lela made it the all more confusing and tended to attract the same answers with a gloss but without changing the substance of the correct answers. There is no evidence other than imputations to suggest that these witnesses had compelling motives to lie to this Court about the death of Father Geve.

17. Previous inconsistent statements.

Previous inconsistent statements are statements made by the witness before the trial commences. When the witness gives his or her oral evidence in court and contradicts what he or she said previously, the witness can be cross-examined on that basis. The witness can also be reminded by the cross-examiner of what he or she had said in his or her previous statement and asked to explain the inconsistency. If the witness cannot recall his or her previous statement, he or she can be shown the part of the previous statement to confirm it and then gives an explanation to the court. The Defence attacked the evidence of Benjamin Ngaovaka, (CW 7), Dyell Tati, (CW 16), Ezekiel Sukulu, (CW 17), Silas Kaki, (CW 19) and Father Francis Lauvaka, (CW 30) on the basis that each had given evidence, parts of which rendered their previous Police statements inconsistent with their evidence in this Court. Again, the value of proving lack of consistency goes to the credibility of the witness and no more and no less. Benjamin Ngaovaka, (CW 7), said in his statement to the Police taken on 24^th September 2003 that he saw the dead body of Father Geve lying in the boat. His evidence in chief was that he saw the dead body of Father Geve on the beach and when cross-examined said he also saw it when the body was already inside the boat. I do not think that is an inconsistency but rather an elaboration of his evidence in chief which is consistent with his statement to the Police given in 2003. As regards Dyell Tati, (CW 16), he made two statements to the Police, the first being on 12^th October 2003 and the second being on 5^th August 2005. The second statement was an additional statement. This second statement corrected the errors in the first statement. His evidence in this Court was generally consistent with his additional statement which is part of the first statement. I can see no inconsistency here. As to Ezekiel Sukulu, (CW 17), he made two statements, the first being on 15^th August 2003 (Exhibit 4) and the second being on 1^st February 2005. He had made corrections to the first statement on the body of that statement so that with the amendments, the first statement is one statement. The additional statement was really to cover errors that might have existed in the first statement. The statements he made were all made outside of court. I do not think the evidence he gave in court was inconsistent with the statements he made previously to the Police. Silas Kaki, (CW 19), also gave some evidence which was inconsistent with his previous statement to the Police in 2003. As regards the mention of Samson Leketo, he said he saw him help to pull the boat out to sea but he agreed he did not mention him in his evidence in court. He denied in cross-examination that the remarks made by Harold Keke about Father Geve after he said he had “off him” in 2003 were different from what he told the court. As regards the omission of Dyell Tati, (CW 16), he said he forgot to mention him in 2003. These inconsistencies are minor and of no consequence. Father Francis Lauvatu, (CW 30), had also given evidence which rendered his statement to the Police inconsistent in that he put the meeting with Harold Keke at Peochakuri village whereas the correct place was Raeavu village. He told Darren Folau that he needed to change that but was told to sign his statement first. Also, he told the Police in 2003 that he recognized Ronnie Cawa and named Dyell Tati, (CW 16), and others. He agreed but said he did not see Ronnie Cawa at Haliatu on 20^th August 2002. The statement referred to in 2003 must have been an oral one for it was not disclosed by the Crown. Again, I do not think these inconsistencies are that fatal to the extent of designating these witness unreliable witnesses.

18. As to the confession Harold Keke made at Inakona.

Counsel for Harold Keke, Mr. Averre, urged me to disregard the evidence of Melanesian Dickson Pana, (CW 15), Dyell Tati, (CW 16), Ezekiel Sukulu, (CW 17), Moses Tataga, (CW 5), and Silas Kaki, (CW 19) who said that Harold Keke admitted to them he had killed Father Geve after his return from Haliatu on 20^th August 2002. The evidence of each of these witnesses has already been set out above in support of the case for the Crown and I not repeat it. One matter of some confusion is the fact that Brother Dickson Pana, (CW 15), did not see Dyell Tati, (CW 16), and Ezekiel Sukulu, (CW 17), in the house at Inakona on 20^th August 2002 and likewise, they did not see Brother Dickson Pana, (CW 15), and Brother Nicholas Hou in that same house. Ezekiel Sukulu, (CW 17), said he only saw three Brothers, namely, Brother Tofi and Albert but did not know the name of the other one. He said he saw them on the MV. Iu Mi Nao travelling from Haliatu to Inakona on that day. He said he did not see Dyell Tati, (CW 16), on the MV. Iu Mi Nao. Any one who had travelled on the MV. Iu Mi Nao will agree that it is a big ship and any one seated or lying down on the deck on one spot cannot see all the passengers on board unless one walks around or the person whom one knows is seated or in a position next to him or her. It is often the case that two persons known to each other travelling on board the ship are surprised on disembarking that they did not see each other on board the ship during the trip. So when a person says that he never saw a named person on board the ship during a particular trip, he or she is not necessarily lying in that context. I take judicial notice of this fact. I had travelled on the MV. Iu Mi Nao a number of times and I know this. Father Francis Lauvatu, (CW 30), had spoken of two Brothers being on the MV. Iu Mi Nao as a matter of routine. There were also the two Brothers who had visited him at Haliatu earlier and returned to Inakona before Harold Keke and his boys arrived at Haliatu. Also, when Brothers Dickson Pana, (CW 15), Nicholas Hou arrived in Honiara, they were met by four Brothers including Brother Tofi. It is therefore fair to say that there were more Brothers at Inakona than just Brothers Dickson Pana, (CW 15), and Nicholas Hou. Seeing Brothers in Keke’s house at Inakona is not the same thing as knowing them by names. Brothers Dickson Pana, (CW 15), and Nicholas Hou were obviously there but Dyell Tati, (CW 16), and Ezekiel Sukulu, (CW 17), did not know them by name so that if they were asked to identify them by name, they would not be able to do so. The same is true of them not being able to identify Dyell Tati, (CW 16), and Ezekiel Sukulu, (CW 17). The fact of non-recognition by name of each other does not mean that they were lying about that fact. I do not think Brother Dickson Pana, (CW 15), was lying about saying that Harold Keke had told them that he had killed Father Geve. His evidence speaks for itself on the details of Harold Keke’ own confession to those of them who were inside the house upon his arrival from Haliatu. He is an independent witness. He had no connection with Harold Keke and his boys, Dyell Tati, (CW 16), and Ezekiel Sukulu, (CW 17). Dyell Tati, (CW 16), knows Harold Keke very well. Harold Keke is his uncle. He was the person whom Harold Keke called on from time to time to write or read documents for Harold Keke. He went with Harold Keke and his boys to Haliatu and returned with them to Inakona. Does he have an axe to grind? There is no evidence of any reason to reach that conclusion. He was clearly an associate of Harold Keke since he stayed with Harold Keke and his boys for some two years or so. Counsel was surprised that he went with Harold Keke knowing Harold Keke was going to kill Father Geve at Haliatu. On being cross-examined, he said he did not think heavy about Harold Keke’s talk because it was just talk. He said his main concern was to collect his clothes and traveling with Harold Keke was the opportunity to do just that and he did so. The fact that he is not being charged with the murder of Father Geve as an accomplice speaks for itself in this regard. He said that Harold Keke did say that Father Geve was dead on their arrival at Inakona in a loud enough voice to be heard by others. Ezekiel Sukulu, (CW 17), said he heard Harold Keke confessed twice. The first time was when Harold Keke and his boys disembarked at Inakona and were heading towards the grave site behind Harold Keke’s house. The second time was after the shots had been fired and moving towards his house with his gun and Father Geve’s brief case. Ezekiel Sukulu, (CW 17), said in chief that he heard Harold Keke said that the brief case belonged to Father Geve and the work he did for the island was honest, his nephew made a mistake and he had shot him dead. This is the same brief case that Dyell Tati, (CW 16), saw Harold Keke held after the death of Father Geve at Haliatu and brought back to Inakona by Harold Keke. He said he was not a member of the GLF though knew Harold Keke. Again, there is no evidence to suggest that this witness had an axe to grind even if he was a member of the GLF. Moses Tataga, (CW 5), and Silas Kaki, (CW 19), heard Harold Keke’s confession as Harold Keke and his boys were walking up towards the grave site. This was the first confession before Harold Keke entered his house after shots had been fired in the air. Did Moses Tataga, (CW 5), and Silas Kaki, (CW 19), have an axe to grind? There is no evidence to suggest that conclusion. If these witnesses did confirm what Brother Dickson Pana, (CW 15), heard Harold Keke say about his killing of Father Geve, must I say that they were lying? I do not think I can conclude that they were lying. And if they were lying for what reason were they doing so? What did they stand to gain by lying on oath about what Harold Keke did say-especially, Dyell Tati, (CW 16), and Ezekiel Sukulu, (CW 17), who stood for the same cause as Harold Keke and his boys stood for as members of GLF.

19. As to the confession Harold Keke made over the radio.

Counsel for Harold Keke also urged me to consider carefully the circumstances surrounding the alleged admissions made over the radio before accepting the confessions made on the radio. Counsel urged me to be aware of the danger of accepting voice identification without directing my mind to the warning that mistaken identification often occurred in criminal cases. On being cross-examined by Mr. Barry, Harold Keke said that he had not spoken to Nathaniel Supa, (CW 20), of the NPC at any time. He said the man who did was his uncle Morris Alburn and he told him so how wrong he was to use his name on the radio. He said Morris Alburn also spoke with Walter Nalangu on the radio, using his name without his knowledge. He said another boy who was staying with him spoke to Superintendent Mosese, (CW 23), on the radio. He agreed that he spoke to Sergeant Chris Tovoa, (CW 24), on the radio about the death of Father Geve but did not say he killed Father Geve. So his case is that he was impersonated by Morris Alburn on the radio with Nathaniel Supa, (CW 20), and Walter Nalangu, (CW 22). He was again impersonated by one of his boys on the radio in the conversation with Superintendent Mosese, (CW23), of RSIP. The obvious conclusion on his evidence is that the voice which Nathaniel Supa, (CW 20), Walter Nalangu, (CW 22), and Superintendent Mosese, (CW 23), recognized as Harold Keke’s voice was not his voice. The implication is that they were mistaken when they said the voice they heard on the radio calls was Harold Keke’s voice. The issue is therefore I think one that concerns a mistaken identification of Harold Keke’s voice than the issue of credibility of the witness who is not to be believed. In his evidence in chief, Nathaniel Supa, (CW 20), said the call came from Harold Keke in the afternoon on 21^st August 2002, the day after Father Geve was shot dead. He said when he received the call, it was Harold Keke who was on the radio call. He said Harold Keke‘s call sign was 00. He received the call from call sign 00. He said he recognised Harold Keke’s voice 100%, meaning he was sure that it was Harold that wanted to speak to him and was talking. In cross-examination, he said he had met Harold Keke about five years ago when Harold Keke was a Policeman and then met him twice at Vilu village in 2001. He said he heard Harold Keke spoke there. He said he had also spoken to Harold Keke on the radio using the call sign 00 in 2002. He said that he was familiar with Harold Keke’s voice because usually, when he wanted to speak to Harold Keke, he would first speak to the radio operator and then that operator would put him on to talk with Harold Keke. He said that was how he was able to pick out the voice difference of Harold Keke from anyone who was the operator. He said the call sign 00 was Harold Keke’s call sign used by no one else. When it was put to him that he was not at all familiar with Harold Keke’s voice, his answer was that he was familiar with voice of Harold Keke. Again, when asked whether he was able to distinguish between Harold Keke’s voice from another man, he said it was easy to distinguish because he had heard Harold Keke’s voice previously. I think Nathaniel Supa, (CW 20), was in a good position to be familiar with Harold Keke’s voice and I do accept that the voice was that of Harold Keke. The next person who spoke to Harold Keke on the same call sign 00 that same afternoon was Walter Nalangu, (CW 22), of the SIBC on the request of Harold Keke. Harold Keke had asked Nathaniel Supa, (CW 20), that he wanted to contact SIBC and so Nathaniel Supa, (CW 20), did that and Walter Nalangu, (CW 22), spoke to Harold Keke. Walter Nalangu, (CW 22), said that he had spoken to Harold Keke on 18 or 19^th August 2002 on the radio about the resignation of Father Geve as a Member of Parliament. Walter Nalangu, (CW 22), also said that he recognized Harold Keke’s voice from having listened to a taped interview his workmate, Lennie Delavera had with Harold Keke previously. He said he was able to distinguish Harold Keke’s voice from Lennie Delavera in that taped interview. If the voice recognized by Nathaniel Supa, (CW 20), was that of Harold Keke, then the same person with the same voice must be the person talking to Walter Nalangu, (CW 22), that same afternoon. It was Harold Keke. It is noteworthy that Harold Keke had called Walter Nalangu, (CW 22), on the same call sign 00 either on 18 or 19^th August 2002 to tell the SIBC of Father Geve’s resignation. Is it not him again to tell Nathaniel Supa, (CW 20), and Walter Nalangu, (CW 22), of the latest fate of Father Geve the day after the death of Father Geve? I am also sure that it was Harold Keke who spoke to Walter Nalangu, (CW 22), of the SIBC that same afternoon. The other radio conversation with Harold Keke was between him and Sergeant Chris Tovoa, (CW 24). Having established contact with Harold Keke, Sergeant Chris Tovoa, (CW 24), left the radio room and Superintendent Mosese, (CW 23), then spoke to Harold Keke. It is also noteworthy that Sergeant Chris Tovoa, (CW 24), recognized Harold Keke’s voice. Asked in cross-examination why Sergeant Chris Tovoa, (CW 24), was able to recognize Harold Keke’s voice, he said that he was the uncle of Harold Keke and they both grew up together in the same village in the Weather Coast. Again, if it was Harold Keke who had been speaking to Sergeant Chris Tovoa, (CW 24), only moments ago spoke to Superintendent Mosese, (CW 23), on the same radio call, then who could have been on the other side but Harold Keke. There is no doubt that Superintendent Mosese, (CW 23), spoke to Harold Keke although the handing over of the speaker to Superintendent Mosese, (CW 23), by Sergeant Chris Tovoa, (CW 24), was not clearly stated. Superintendent Mosese, (CW 23), said he had met and spoken to Harold Keke in August, 2002 and had spoken with him on the radio on the same call sign previously. I am sure that the same Harold Keke that Sergeant Tovoa, (CW 24), had spoken to, spoke to Superintendent Mosese, (CW 23), on the radio on call sign 00.

20. The case for Harold Keke.

Harold Keke did not give any statements to the Police about the murder of Father Geve. In fact, he was never interviewed by the Police. He had exercised his right to be silent until proven guilty in a court of law. That is his right under section 10(2) of the Constitution. He began his evidence in chief by reciting the root causes for the conflict on Guadalcanal. Harold Keke in his evidence said that there was no meeting at Ngalipapa. He said that all that took place was that he called his boys and gave them advice about safety measures to be taken about their guns at the pending Raeavu meeting. This is inconsistent with the evidence given by five witnesses called by the Crown who attended the Ngalipapa meeting and later the Raeavu meeting the same morning. Lemuel Toba, (CW 1), is a church worker. He recalled a letter being announced in his village that there was to be a meeting on 18^th August 2002 and 19^th August 2002. He recalled that three persons were required to represent one village, one being a chief, another being a church representative and a representative of the militants. Lawrence Vuini, (CW 2) is also a church worker. He too recalled the same in his village. Enly Ote, (CW 3) recalled a letter being announced by Ben Baku in his village about the meeting at Raeavu. Daniel Mapi, (CW 4) recalled Ben Baku coming to his village with a letter telling them to attend a meeting at Raeavu. Moses Tatagu, (CW 5) recalled a letter being read out in the church about the same. These witnesses all confirmed that Harold Keke had rehearsed those attending the Ngalipapa meeting what to say if he asked them again the same question at the pending Raeavu meeting. They said they went to the meeting blindly in that they were not told what the meeting was about until Harold Keke told them what the agenda was. I find that there was indeed a meeting at Ngalipapa organized by Harold Keke at which he rehearsed the attendees what to say at the pending meeting at Raeavu.

Harold Keke in his evidence simply glossed over the details of the Raeavu meeting. He said in his evidence in chief that he simply asked the attendees at the Raeavu meeting to say whether they were in favour of Father Geve continuing as their sitting member of Parliament or not and the response was in the negative. He said he asked again to confirm that response and the people shouted that they did not like Father Geve to continue as their sitting member of Parliament. In cross-examination, he denied forcing Father Geve to resign but simply told him that the people did not like him. He said that he told Dyell, (CW 16), Tati to write a letter to the Prime Minister requesting him to come to discuss the matter with the people but instead, Dyell Tati, (CW 16), wrote a letter of resignation. He said Dyell Tati, (CW 16), and Father Geve sat down to write the letter and Dyell Tati, (CW16), gave it to the two Melanesian Brothers to take it to Honiara. He said he did not see the letter. He denied spending the night of 19^th August 2002 at Haliatu. He also denied that he invited Brothers Dickson Pana, (CW 15), and Nicholas Hou for breakfast on the morning of 20^th August 2002 and then gave each of them the sum of $100.00 for their expenses whilst in Honiara. Francis Laisa, (CW 6), the brother of Father Geve, said that Father Geve and some of Harold Keke’ boys went to his house after Harold Keke had told Father Geve to write a resignation letter. Jessy Rickson, (CW 8), said that Father Geve sat in the veranda of her father-in –law’s house in the presence of Harold Keke’s boys whereupon Father Geve asked her an envelope which she gave. She said Father Geve sat and wrote. She said she did not see the content of the letter. This is a contradiction to Harold Keke’s evidence. Furthermore, Dickson Pana, (CW 15), who also attended the meeting at Raeavu, said Harold Keke called him and Brother Hou and gave them a yellow envelope and told them to take Father Geve’s letter to the Prime Minister. He said he put it inside his bag. He said he and Brother Hou then walked to Haliatu by foot. He said they spent the night at Haliatu with Father Geve in the same house belonging to a man by the name of Silas. He said in the morning, the next day, 20^th August 2002, Harold Keke called him and Brother Hou for break-fast and there gave $100.00 each for expenses whilst in Honiara to deliver Father Geve’s resignation letter to the Prime Minister. He said Father Geve was not called for break-fast. He said they later boarded the MV. Iu Mi Nao at Haliatu and left for Inakona. When they reached Inakona, Harold Keke was already there. This is again a contradiction to Harold Keke’s evidence. Dyell Tati, (CW 16), in his evidence said that he did not see the resignation letter Father Geve wrote to the Prime Minister. He said he slept on the MV. Iu Mi Nao at Haliatu because Harold Keke had told him and others to assist the crew to unload cargo at Inakona when the ship arrived there. This is again a contradiction to Harold Keke’s evidence in so far as the writing and sending of Father Geve’s resignation letter is concerned. The Crown called sixteen persons who attended the meeting at Raeavu to give evidence about the details of that meeting. Whilst there are variations in their recollection of the exact words used by Harold Keke at the meeting, the core of his achievement was that he had been able to coax the attendees of that meeting to say in the presence of Father Geve that they intensely did not like him to continue as their sitting member of Parliament and that provided the basis for Harold Keke to ask him to resign immediately which he did and the letter of resignation was written and sent accordingly. Whilst the contradictions of Harold Keke by the Crown witnesses about the details of the Ngalipapa and Raeavu meetings are not fatal to establishing his guilt or otherwise in the death of Father Geve, they are significant in pointing to the credibility of Harold Keke as a man of truth. In his evidence in chief, he said he left Haliatu on 19^th August 2002 for Inakona and spent the night there. He said he left Inakona at half-past eleven on 20^th August 2002 for Haliatu. He said before leaving Inakona, Armon had called him because Dyell Tati, (CW 16), had read a letter to the boys and they knew about its content. He said he then asked Dyell Tati, (CW 16), why he had read the letter. He said Dyell Tati, (CW 16), did not answer but instead, he held it and said that Father Geve had written the letter and asked the Prime Minister for $39,000.00 for Viso clinic to be put into his account and for touring expenses. He said he did not ask for the letter to be read out or touched it but he saw it. He said that he then suggested that they should go and see Father Geve about the letter and they went to Haliatu. He said on arrival at Haliatu, Dyell Tati, (CW 16), ran up to the house and then William Suia came down and said Father Geve was dead. He said he told William Suia that they had to see to it that Father Geve be buried. He said he told William Suia that they had to explain what happened at Haliatu. He said after that he went back to Inakona in the boat. He said he was at Haliatu for less than eight minutes. He said that Dyell Tati, (CW 16), then said that he had given the letter to Benjamin Ngaovaka, (CW 7), at Haliatu.

When he was asked by his Counsel about the death of Father Geve, he simply said someone else killed Father Geve at Haliatu. At least that was what William Suia told him at Haliatu. He did not seem to want to say anymore on that issue. Only when pressed by cross-examination by Mr. Barry did he say that Morris and Lianga were responsible for the death of Father Geve according to William Suia. He said William Suia was dead and so were Morris and Lianga, the killers of Father Geve. He spoke lightly about it. His body language in the witness-box seemed to suggest that he did not want any more questions from Mr. Barry in cross-examination about the death of Father Geve and that attitude caused him to evade questions by giving round about answers and sticking to his evidence in chief. He was of course entitled to maintain his innocence on the evidence in chief. When confronted with the substance of the events at Inakona and Haliatu on 20^th August 2002 in cross-examination by Mr. Barry, he flatly said such things were all lies. In that respect, he was unmoved by cross-examination by Mr. Barry. He was clearly irritated by the cross-examination seeking to link him with the death of Father Geve. When he was cross-examined about how he felt about the behaviour of Father Geve before his death, he said he was cross with him but his going to Haliatu was simply to talk to him but when he got there Father Geve was already dead, killed by the named persons. He did not seem to regret the death of Father Geve. His answers to questions in cross-examination had in them an element of contempt towards Father Geve though clearly undetectable on his face. He did not provide an albi. The fact that William Suia, Morris and Lianga had died, leaves himself and Ronnie Cawa as the only living persons to be believed about his version of facts. Unless Father Geve had been killed in secret, someone in Haliatu was bound to see who killed him besides William Suia. It is not even clear that William Suia was an eye witness to the killing of Father Geve by Lianga and Morris or that he heard about the killing of Father Geve from someone else. Harold Keke’s version of facts has the hallmarks of a made up story. That story does not seem to have a ring of truth about it. It was made up by Harold Keke to escape responsibility for the death of Father Geve. Why did he want to hide the killers of Father Geve and then be arrested, detained, charged and tried for a death for which he was not responsible? Perhaps, there is no point of telling the Police because the killers are dead. It is also all too easy to blame dead persons to mislead this Court. Father Geve was an important man. He was a Minister of the Crown. No one other than Harold Keke would have ordered his death. The villages of Raeavu, Ngalipapa, Haliatu and Inakona are within the heartland of GLF. Harold Keke was the warlord in the areas in the Weather Coast under his control and influence on the date of Father Geve’s death. I do not believe him when he said that Father Geve died at the hands of other people and that he had nothing to do with Father Geve’s death. The combined evidence of the witnesses for the Crown does contradict Harold Keke’s version of facts in material ways. I do take into account the fact that the death of Father Geve happened in 2002, a little over two years ago and memories have faded a little over these years. His Counsel did not address me on why I should believe Harold Keke’s version of facts and not the Crown witnesses.

21. The law about murder.

The law on murder is well established in this jurisdiction by case law. I do not wish to go into the case law than to say that intent to cause the death of a person is an element in a murder charge under section 200 of the Code. Section 202 of the Code expresses intent as malice aforethought. Intent is a state of mind which can exist preceding the act or omission that caused death or co-existing with the act or omission that caused death. The evidence against Harold Keke clearly points to the fulfillment of section 202(a) of the Code. That is, Harold Keke intended to kill Father Geve after the discovery of the second letter that Father Geve had written to the Prime Minister and the reading of it and knowing about its content in the house he occupied at Inakona in the Weather Coast. Melanesian Brother, Dickson Pana, (CW 15), Deyall Tati, (CW 16), Ezekiel Sukulu, (CW 17) and Silas Kaki, (CW 19) gave evidence on this fact. I do not have any reason to disbelieve them. Harold Keke also boasted about having killed Father Geve on his arrival at Inakona from Haliatu on 20^th August 2002, the day of the murder. Again, Dickson Pana, (CW 15), Ezekiel Sukulu, (CW 17), and Silas Kaki, (CW 19) gave evidence on this fact. Again, I do not have any reason to disbelieve them on this fact. Father Francis Lauvatu saw Harold Keke killed Father Geve in fulfilling his intention to kill Father Geve. I believe him.

22. Harold Keke’s accusation against Father Geve and his intention to kill him.

Harold Keke’s decision to kill Father Geve was formed after the discovery of the second letter. His initial accusation against Father Geve was that he had done nothing good after being in Parliament for a period of eight months. Harold Keke did not however set out what he meant by saying that Father Geve had done nothing good in the meetings at Ngalipapa and Raeavu. Father Geve was not given an opportunity to explain his side of the story. Father Geve was simply told to resign immediately by Harold Keke. Father Geve did write a letter of resignation. James Laisa, (CW 9) spoke to Father Geve at Ngalipapa in the presence of Harold Keke. Father Geve asked James Laisa (CW 9) to bring to him his brief case inside the canoe at Ngalipapa. James Laisa (CW 9) sought permission from Harold Keke to do that, and permission having been granted, he went and took the brief case and gave it to Father Geve. Father Geve took his ANZ card and gave it to James Laisa (CW 9) to pass it on to his driver on the MV. Iu Mi Nao with the instruction to withdraw a sum of money and return with it to Father Geve. James Laisa, (CW 9), did as Father Geve told him to do. There was another letter bearing the signature and name of Father Geve which was read to the people of Raeavu by Benjamin Ngaovaka (CW 7) following the death of Father Geve. The letter allegedly addressed to the Prime Minister sought the release of funds for micro-projects in his constituency to Father Geve’s account. The letter was not produced in Court. Bejamin Ngaovaka, (CW 7) returned the letter to Chief Suia who is now dead who had earlier given it to Benjamin Ngaovaka (CW 7) to read it at Raeavu upon the arrival of the deceased’s body. It appeared that it was that same letter that Dyell Tati, (CW 16), had earlier read to Harold Keke in his house at Inakona at the invitation of Harold Keke. It was that same letter that Harold Keke confronted Father Geve with at Haliatu before Harold Keke ordered him to walk down to the beach where he was shot dead. In the beginning, the deceased in his election campaign had told the people that he would do his best to represent his people in Parliament and if he should fail to do so, Harold Keke would shoot him. The second letter, according to Harold Keke was found inside Father Geve’s brief case when he spoke on the radio but in cross-examination, he said that he heard someone brought it from someone from the MV. Iu Mi Nao. Harold Keke denied this letter being read out to him and others on his request by Dyell Tati, (CW 16), at Inakona. Who found it is not clear. It could have been in the possession of Ivan, Father Geve’s driver, who was on the MV. Iu Mi Nao and to whom Father Geve had already given his ANZ bank card for withdrawal of a sum of money. In any case, the discovery of the second letter was what sparked the killing of Father Geve by Harold Keke. Harold Keke’s intention to kill Father had been expressed at Inakona. He had told the Melanesian Brothers and others who were in his house to wait until he returned from Haliatu. He had expressed the same after the reading of the second letter by Dyell Tati, (CW 16), in house at Inakona. He announced the fulfillment of his intention by running his finger across his throat and then saying that he had “off” the evil leader on disembarking from his boat. He later told Nathaniel Supa, (CW 20), of the NPC and Superintendent Mosese, (CW 23), about his killing of Father Geve. He also told Walter Nalangu, (CW 22), and Sergeant Chris Tovoa, (CW 24), of the fact that Father Geve was dead.

23. The case for Ronnie Cawa and Francis Lela.

Who else killed Father Geve? When the letter allegedly written by Father Geve was being read in Harold Keke’s house by Dyell Tati, (CW 16), at Inakona on 20^th August 2002, Ronnie Cawa and Francis Lela were present. Dyell Tati, (CW 16), said that after he read the letter, Harold Keke looked serious and said he would go to see Father Geve to discuss the issues in the letter. He told Ronnie Cawa, Francis Lela and Ben Baku to accompany him to Haliatu. Harold Keke, Ronnie Cawa, Francis Lela and Ben Baku then walked to the beach and boarded the boat with Dyell Tati, (CW 16) who, though was traveling in the same boat, was going to collect his clothes at Buabua village. Ezekiel Sukulu, (CW 17) said in his evidence that Ronnie Cawa, Francis Lela and Ben Baku were present with Harold Keke in Harold Keke’s house when Dyell Tati, (CW 16) was reading the letter allegedly written by Father Geve. Harold Keke remarked to Ronnie Cawa after the second letter had been read that they had tried to look after Father Geve and yet Father Geve did that to them and treated that as a legitimate reason for Father Geve to be killed. Here, Harold Keke was referring to the content of the letter and more particularly, Father Geve’s allegation in that letter that he was being confined by Harold Keke. Harold Keke even suggested that Ronnie Cawa should punch Father Geve. He then changed his mind and said he would kill Father Geve himself. Ronnie Cawa, Francis Lela and Ben Baku were each carrying a gun and were in the boat with Harold Keke, their destination being Haliatu where Father Geve was staying on that day. This is not disputed. Benjamin Ngaovaka, (CW 7) identified Harold Keke and Ronnie Cawa walking away to their canoe after the shooting of Father Geve, each of them carrying a gun. Dyell Tati, (CW 16), said that he was the only one who did not carry a gun when they left Inakona for Haliatu. Anglican Father Francis Lauvatu, (CW 30), said that the boys who came with Harold Keke were standing around Harold Keke when he shot Father Geve although he did not identify anyone of them by name. The boys who left Inakona with Harold Keke, apart from Dyell Tati, (CW 16), were Ronnie Cawa, Francis Lela and Ben Baku. Who else could have stood around with Harold Keke at the relevant time but the same boys who had arrived with him at Haliatu accompanying him to see Father Geve. They were his security men in the least. The same boys returned with Harold Keke in the boat to Inakona and then shots were fired behind Harold Keke’s house. Ezekiel Sukulu, (CW 17) in his evidence in chief said that he saw Harold Keke showing a sign with his finger across his neck and then he and the boys with him went to the grave site and shots were fired in the air. Silas Kaki, (CW 19) said in cross-examination that he saw Harold Keke, Ronnie Cawa, Francis Lela and Ben Baku went to the grave site behind the road and Harold Keke’s house. No one saw Ronnie Cawa did anything to Father Geve at Haliatu. However, Ronnie Cawa admitted in his statement to Inspector Folau in an interview conducted on 13^th August 2003 on board the HMAS Manoora that he shot Father Geve at Haliatu. Francis Lela also admitted in his statement to Station Sergeant Magness in an interview conducted on 2^nd October 2003 that he was present when Father Geve was shot. Francis Netana, (CW 25) said that Francis Lela had told him after the event that he had assisted in the killing of Father Geve at Haliatu village. Father Francis Lauvatu, (CW 30), said in his evidence in chief that the other boys stood around Harold Keke in a letter “c” formation. He said the boys stood with their guns pointing down. He said they turned to Harold Keke and Father Geve and then turned their backs to Harold Keke and Father Geve, suggesting that they were look-outs and at the same time shielding Harold Keke from any possible danger coming from the residents of Haliatu. The boys doing this must have been none other than Ronnie Cawa, Francis Lela and Ben Baku. They were the boys who had come to Haliatu with Harold Keke. The number of boys who had arrived with Harold Keke on the boat and their identification is not in dispute. Father Francis Lauvatu, (CW 30), said that whilst he was sitting at point A in Exhibit 16, he saw Harold Keke passed him in a boat. This confirms Dyell Tati’s, (CW 16, evidence that he was dropped off at a spot opposite Buabua village and Harold Keke and his boys then went off in the right direction towards the trees to see Father Geve. Benjamin Ngaovaka, (CW 7) said that he heard two shots being fired whilst cooking rice in Willie Suia’s house. Willie Suia went off first to investigate and that Dyell Tati, (CW 16), met him running whilst on his way back after he heard shots being fired. He said he heard at least two shots being fired. Harold Keke said that he had killed Father Geve with five rounds or ammunition in his radio conversation on 21^st August 2002 with Nathaniel Supa of the NPC and confirmed it with Walter Nalangu, (CW 22) of the Solomon Islands Broadcasting Corporation (SIBC) (though he said live rounds) the same day. Lisa Nicholson, (CW 26) said in evidence that there were eleven holes consistent with bullet holes in the front of Father Geve’s T-shirt. The T-shirt had been removed from Father Geve’s dead body on the day of his death by his relatives for safe keeping awaiting Police investigation. If Harold Keke had fired five rounds, who had fired the other six rounds? There is evidence to confirm that other parts of Father Geve’s dead body had also received injuries such as his leg, arm and finger outside the trunk area of the body. The dead body of Father Geve had not been exhumed to show which internal organs had been put out of action thus causing death to occur. The injuries to the leg, arm and finger could not have been fatal but the eleven holes in the trunk of his body were clearly lethal. There were exit holes also on the back of the same T-shirt, suggesting that some bullets had penetrated the body and exited in the back of his body. Whilst there is no evidence to show how many bullets were inside the magazine of Harold Keke’s gun when he left Inakona and likewise for Ronnie Cawa, there is evidence that Harold Keke had fired five rounds from his gun. Whilst there is no evidence to show the areas of impact of the bullets on the body of Father Geve, Father Francis Lauvatu, (CW 30) said that Harold Keke was pointing his gun at Father Geve as he was talking to Father Geve at point D where he shot Father Geve. Father Francis Lauvatu, (CW 30) said that Harold Keke’s back was towards him at that time so that Harold Keke was facing Father Geve when he shot Father Geve. The holes and their respective positions in the front of Father Geve’s T-shirt speak for themselves on this fact. It is not in dispute that Ronnie Cawa was carrying a SR88 type of rifle that day they travelled to Haliatu. Ronnie Cawa confirmed this in is evidence in chief. He was identified with Harold Keke by Benjamin Ngaovaka, (CW 7) at Haliatu as they were walking towards their canoe, each carrying a gun after two shots had been heard by Benjamin Ngaovaka, (CW 7). There is no eye witness to say that Ronnie Cawa and Francis Lela had also shot Father Geve. They were however members of his party that went to Haliatu to kill Father Geve. Each of them knew why they were going to Haliatu. Each of them heard Harold Keke saying in his house at Inakona after the second letter had been read that he would kill Father Geve. He told them that they were going to Haliatu and they accompanied him to Haliatu. Each of them disembarked at Haliatu and accompanied Harold Keke to where Father Geve was sitting under the koilo tree at Haliatu and walked with them down to the beach where Harold Keke shot Father Geve. Each of them was armed with a rifle. Each of them stood with Harold Keke as his security guards until Harold Keke shot Father Geve. Each of them returned with Harold Keke to Inakona and took part in firing shots in the air to celebrate the death of Father Geve. On that basis, each of them could be guilty of aiding and abetting in the killing of Father Geve on 20^th August 2002.

24. The law about aiding and abetting.

In Cases and Materials in Criminal Law by Brett and Waller, 1962, the learned authors, at pages 401-402, say-

“...A man may be principal in an offence in two degrees. A principal, in the first degree, is he that is the actor, or absolute perpetrator of the crime; and, in the second degree, he is who is present, aiding and abetting the fact to be done. Which presence need not always be an actual immediate standing by; but there may be also a constructive presence as when one commits a robbery or murder, and another keeps watch or guard at some convenient distance...”.

On the issue of presence at the scene of the crime, Cave, J. being in the majority judgment in The Queen v. Coney [1882] UKLawRpKQB 30; (1881-1882) 8 QBD 534 at page 541 agreed with the statement cited above, apart from saying that mere presence alone is not sufficient to constitute a case for principal of the second degree. To constitute a case for a principal of the second degree, there must be evidence of conduct pointing to assisting or abetting the principal of the first degree. That is, where presence is entirely innocent or accidental, there can be no evidence of aiding and abetting. Where presence is on the face of it is not accidental, it is no more than evidence for the jury or court.

At page 557-558, Hawkins, J. said-

“...In my opinion, to constitute an aider and abettor some active steps must be taken by word, or action, with the intent to instigate the principal or principals. Encouragement does not of necessity amount to aiding and abetting, it may be intentional or unintentional , a man may, unwittingly encourage another in fact by his presence, by misinterpreted words, or gestures, or by his silence, on non-interference, or he may encourage intentionally by expressions, gestures, or actions intended to signify approval. In the latter case he aids and abets, in the former he does not. It is no criminal offence to stand by, a mere passive spectator of a crime, even of a murder. Non-interference to prevent a crime is not itself a crime. But the fact that a person was voluntarily and purposely present witnessing the commission of a crime, and offered no opposition to it, though he might reasonably be expected to prevent and had the power so to do, or at least to express his dissent, might under some circumstances afford cogent evidence upon which a jury would be justified in finding that he wilfully encouraged and so aided and abetted. But it would be purely a question for the jury whether he did so or not...”.

Cave and Hawkins, J.J. were speaking in the context of a prize fight but the principles remain, in the main, accurate to this day. As to what is aiding and abetting under section 21(c) of the Code, White, ACJ in The Queen v. Peter Loumia and Others, Criminal Case No. 7 of 1984 (unreported) said at page 5 in his summing up to the assessors-

“...Some of the words need to be restated in perhaps ordinary language-aids, and it is important to keep in mind just what it means-aids means actively helps. Abets means encourages. It is not sufficient to show that a person has done any of these things, aiding, abetting, counseling or procuring, unless it is also shown that the person knew what it was the other person intended to do. To know what was intended, however, does not mean that he had to know precisely what was going to be done, but that he knew generally what it was the other person was going to do. For example, as in this case, that lethal weapons were likely to be used...”.

Clearly, to be guilty of being a principal of the second degree, the aider and abettor must have had at least some general knowledge of what the principal in the first degree intended to do in the first place. Because the Crown also relied on the application of section 22 of the Code in the alternative, I also need to restate His Lordship’s summing up above at pages 5 -6 as to the meaning of section 22 of the Code-

“...Put shortly, that means that where two or more people form a common intention or plan to prosecute, that is, to carry out some unlawful enterprise take for example, a burglary, and to assist each other in carrying it out then each of them is a party to, and equally guilty of any crime that one of them does when carrying out that common plan. The words a “probable consequence” mean a consequence, a result. The important thing to keep in mind is that a person taking part knows what did happen could well happen-that a person taking part knows that. That does not mean that those involved sat down and considered the matter as to what might well happen, but it does mean that the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the other persons concerned knew that in carrying out the plan it could well happen that one or more of them could do what in fact took place. As I said, a common intention to carry out a common purpose or plan, as I have explained it, can be inferred from the evidence of what happened, so that it is for the Assessors to decide whether the evidence did prove beyond reasonable doubt that a common purpose and agreement to help each other, knowing what could well happen, was the situation in this case. The question is whether the person concerned knew what in fact happened, that is, in this case, the use of knives, bows and arrows, on other persons causing death was a probable consequence outcome of the common purpose. If the person or persons knew what happened was a probable consequence then the law is that the person or persons are guilty of the crime the other person committed. But if that is not proved beyond reasonable doubt then such persons are not guilty under that section...”.

The most recent case in which sections 21(c) and 22 of the Code had been revisited is R v. Ronny Oeta and Allen Maelalia, Criminal Case No. 173 of 2003.

25. Is Harold Keke guilty of the murder of Father Geve?

This case really turns on who was telling me the truth during the trial. I will decide this issue not in a vacuum or in the abstract but in the light of all the evidence elicited by the Crown during the trial as against the evidence given by Harold Keke in his defence. I say this to avoid any misunderstanding that I had made up my mind to convict without the proper assessment of the evidence on both sides. I have done the assessment exercise and have formed my view on the basis on that assessment exercise. Harold Keke denied being the killer of Father Geve. The effect of his stand is that anything the Crown witnesses had said in evidence regarding his criminal culpability is irrelevant and of course not true. The only way to conclude that he was the killer was to disbelieve his story in court on oath on the basis of his credibility as a witness of truth. He provided no alibi in his evidence. That is to say that he was elsewhere, not at Haliatu, on the day Father Geve was killed. He admitted in evidence that he was at Haliatu on the 20^th August 2002. He had heard about the second letter at Inakona indirectly as Dyell Tati, (C W16), had already read it to the Melanesian Brothers and other boys. He suggested that he and the boys go to Haliatu to speak about it with Father Geve. Having got there and finding that Father Geve was already dead, he went back to Inakona. I do not understand why he thought necessary to tell William Suia to arrange for the burial of Father Geve and to explain his death to the people before he left for Inakona. He spoke of the second letter being given to William Suia or Benjamin Ngaovaka at Haliatu by Dyell Tati, (CW 16). He said the killers of Father Geve and William Suia had all died. He denied saying anything at Inakona before going to Haliatu and after returning to Inakona. He denied speaking to anyone on the radio that to Sergeant Chris Tovoa, (CW 24), of the RSIP. The Crown witnesses spoke to the contrary in evidence. Father Francis Lauvatu, (CW 30), saw him shot Father Geve at Haliatu on 20^th August 2002. Benjamin Ngaovaka, (CW 7), saw him at Haliatu walking towards his boat with Ronnie Cawa after shots had been fired and William Suia told him that Father Geve was dead. Dyell Tati, (CW 16), one of his passengers, had heard shots being fired and met the same William Suia who told him that Father Geve was dead. He saw Harold Keke returning to their boat holding a brief case. On arrival at Inakona, he boasted about having killed Father Geve. He even went to the extent the next day to tell Nathaniel Supa, (CW 20), that he had killed Father Geve and gave the reasons for doing so. He told Walter Nalangu, (CW 22), of the SIBC and Chris Tovoa, (CW 24), that Father Geve was dead. Later on he told Superintendent Mosese, (CW 23), of the RSIP that he had killed Father Geve and gave the reasons for doing so. The fact that Haliatu was also a GLF base and some militants might possess guns on 20^th August 2002, the day Father Geve was killed, is of no significance. This is exactly the scenario that Harold Keke wanted me to believe in that Morris and Lianga had done the job before he got there. But the question to be asked is on whose order was the job done? Harold Keke appeared to be saying that there were many disgruntled people around the place as Father Geve’s leadership and performance was lacking in the essence. The fact is that Harold Keke was the disgruntled man. The evidence on this point against him was overwhelming. This was a high profile murder. Harold Keke and Father Geve were both high profile men in the Weather Coast. To suggest that Father Geve was killed by some silly disgruntled GLF men without the knowledge of Harold Keke is a lie. I do not believe Harold Keke’s story about these dead mysterious killers, one of whom is a radio impostor. I believe the evidence of the Crown witnesses instead and that being so, I find Harold Keke guilty as charged. I convict him of the murder of Father Geve accordingly. The verdict is that he is guilty of murder.

26. Is Ronnie Cawa guilty of the murder of Father Geve?

Ronnie Cawa said that he got into the boat at Inakona with Harold Keke and others after he came ashore from the MV. Iu Mi Nao. He said he had asked Dyell Tati, (CW 16), where they were going and Dyell Tati, (CW 16), said they were going to talk with Father Geve. He then travelled to Haliatu. When they got there, Dyell Tati, (CW 16), went to collect his clothes. He said he saw William Suia came down to the beach and told Harold Keke that Father Geve was dead. In cross-examination by Mr. Barry, he said Morris and Lianga had killed Father Geve. He said he had lied to the Police in his interview on 13^th August 2003 on the HMAS Manoora. He said he made an admission in the interview to shorten the story and so he lied to the Police. He said he told the Police what the Police wanted to hear despite Harold Keke’ warning against saying anything to the Police which could be used against him. He said he did not hear any letter being read at Inakona because he jumped into Harold Keke’s boat as soon as he got ashore from the MV. Iu Mi Nao. He said he did not know the purpose of their going to Haliatu that day. Again, like Harold Keke, the evidence against him is overwhelming. No witness had stated exactly what time the MV. Iu Mi Nao arrived at Inakona on 20^th August 2002. But according to Dyell Tati, (CW 16), and Ezekiel Sukulu, (CW 17), Ronnie Cawa was amongst those who were present at Inakona in Harold Keke’s house when Dyell Tati, (CW 16), read out the letter. The letter was read again the second time when the Melanesian Brothers arrived. In fact, Harold Keke suggested that Ronnie Cawa should punch Father Geve but changed his mind to say that he would do it himself. Harold Keke also spoke to Ronnie Cawa that at Inakona that they had tried to look after Father Geve and he betrayed them, that he should be killed. Ronnie Cawa then left with Harold Keke and the others on the boat for Haliatu. He was carrying a SR88 type of rifle with him. He was seen with Harold Keke carrying a gun by Benjamin Ngaovaka, (CW 7), soon after shots being fired and the discovery of Father Geve’s dead body, walking towards their boat. There is evidence that there were eleven bullet holes on the front of T-shirt worn by Father Geve. There were injuries also to the leg, arm and finger of Father Geve. The only evidence as to the number of bullets fired came from Harold Keke in his radio conversation with Nathaniel Supa, (CW 20), of the NPC on 21^st August 2002, the day Father Geve was shot. He said Father Geve had died from five rounds. In his conversation with Walter Nalangu, (CW 22), of the SIBC that same day, he said five rounds-five live ammunitions. This is the case in my hand written notes. Any other version may be a mistake in the transcript typing of the evidence. It is also possible that word five rounds was used in the conversation with Nathaniel Supa, (CW 20), and live rounds in the conversation with Walter Nalangu, (CW 22). Whichever is the case, I regard the two versions as they are and draw my own conclusions on them. I accept that Harold Keke told Nathaniel Supa, (CW 20), having used five rounds to kill Father Geve. In the light of that fact, it is not unreasonable to infer from it that the other bullet holes must have caused by Ronnie Cawa’s SR88 rifle. It is also noteworthy that Benjamin Ngaovaka, (CW 7), said he heard two shots. Dyell Tati, (CW 16), also said at least two shots though there could be more. Father Francis Lauvatu, (CW 30), said he heard two shots being fired at Father Geve before he was on the ground. It is also not unreasonable to infer that the second shot must have come from Ronnie Cawa’s SR88 type rifle. This circumstantial evidence is supported by the confession of Ronnie Cawa conducted on 13^th August 2003 by Inspector Darren Folau. Ronnie Cawa challenged the admissibility of the record of the interview in a voire dire trial and I ruled in favour of the admission of this evidence. My duty now is to determine the truth of the content of the record of interview and place weight on it if I accept it as representing the truth. It noteworthy that in his answer to question 2 in the interview, he said he was 100% willing to be asked any questions. Then his answer to question 3 was that he was willing to be interviewed. I listened again to the interview in my Chambers and I can assure anyone who may listen to the interview that the atmosphere in that taped interview was more relaxed than when he was giving evidence in Court. The answer to question 317 was more or less a justification for the death of Father Geve. This is the same evidence that came out at the Raeavu meeting on the 19^th August 2002 and spoken of by Benjamin Ngaovaka, (CW 7), in his evidence. Question 328 was the crucial one. It asked who killed Father Geve. Ronnie Cawa’s response was “mm. I’m the one who killed him”. Question 319 asked whether Harold Keke also shot him. Ronnie Cawa’s response was, “I did. I shot him”. Question 323 asked whether Harold Keke also shot that man. Ronnie Cawa’s response was “Yeah”. “Me shoot him too”. Question 328 asked for the reason for shooting Father Geve was because he lied in his promise and Ronnie Cawa’s response was “Yeah” and then repeated the justification for killing Father Geve. Ronnie Cawa’s answer to question 333 was “Then we transport his body go and put him in the village. Then said because he said himself, tell if I’m wrong we kill him. So that’s what he wants us killim him because he say so. We fulfill what he said himself”.

The tone of the questioning was also to implicate Harold Keke but Ronnie Cawa said he also did it. Ronnie Cawa now says all these answers are lies he told to the Police. How can that be? I can understand him if he says that he told the Police what he told the Police to shield Harold Keke, his boss, from wrong doing. But that is not the reason he gave in his evidence. Probably, he now realizes that he made a mistake by making admissions to the Police in his interview. The reason may be that his denial of his admissions in the interview would be consistent with his denial of being one of the killers of Father Geve. Taking that position would make sense only if I believe him. Like Harold Keke, I do not believe his story in the trial. He was evasive, tense and pretending to tell the truth in cross-examination. He believed that because of Father Geve’s misconduct and breach of his election promise, he was entitled to die. This is evident from the content of his statement to Inspector Darren Folau. Instead, I believe the evidence elicited by the Crown. I find that Ronnie Cawa also shot Father Geve on 20^th August 2002 at Haliatu. He was a principal in the first degree along with Harold Keke. I find him guilty of murder as charged and convict him accordingly. The verdict is that he is guilty of murder.

27. Is Francis Lela guilty of the murder of Father Geve?

Counsel, Miss Swift, argued that there was no direct evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Francis Lela had the intention to assist in the killing of Father Geve and actually assisting in the physical sense of doing something to assist in that regard. She however conceded that if anything at all, the evidence is circumstantial only against her client but suggested even so it would be unsafe as a basis for conviction. The answer to this argument lies in the remarks made by Hawkins, J. in The Queen v. Coney cited above in that where a person is voluntarily and purposely present at the scene of the crime when it is being committed and does nothing though it is possible he could prevent its commission and could so to prevent its commission or at least to express dissent, that is evidence for the jury to find that the person had wilfully encouraged and so aided and abetted the commission of the crime. On that basis one can therefore say in this case that Francis Lela could not have prevented the killing of Father Geve at Haliatu or expressed dissent because of the obvious risk to his own life from Harold Keke himself. That argument can only succeed if there is evidence to support it. Such evidence can only exist where the alleged aider and abettor had some reason to intervene or to express dissent. Where such reason does not exist, such evidence does not exist also and so the argument cannot be advanced in a vacuum on that basis. Such reason may exist where the alleged aider and abettor had never been a party to the crime in the first place or that he had retracted or that he had an obligation personal to him to intervene or disagree. The evidence against Francis Lela in this case is his statement under caution to the Police in his interviews with the Police on 2^nd October 2003. He was cautioned before the interview commenced at Kolina village. His answer to question 8 was,

“...In that regard it was true that I followed the trip to witness when General had shot Father Geve. It was after the meeting at his place, Kuma, Raeavu and after come back to Raeavu, we came to Haliatu...”.

The interview was continued at the Iron Bottom Sound premises at 7:31pm. He did not attend the Raevu meeting on 19^th August 2002. He was at Inakona on 20^th August 2002 and then went to Haliatu when Father Geve was shot. When he got there Father Geve was still alive, sitting under the koilo tree eating food with some boys. Question 54 asked why he went to Haliatu. His answer was, “...I just followed the boat...”. Question 65 asked whether he knew that Father Geve was to be killed. His answer was ”Yes I know”. Question 66 asked who told him that. His answer was, “HK said that he will kill him”. Question 67 asked what time Harold Keke said that. His answer was, “On the same day. Then he told us to follow him to Haliatu.” Question 68 asked where Harold Keke said that. His answer was, “At Inakona”. Question 70 asked whether he saw Father Geve with his own eyes. His answer was, “Yes I saw it”. As to his mental attitude, his answer to question 71 was, “...He was already guilty...” suggesting that he would have had no reason to intervene or dissent against the killing of Father Geve. Question 74 asked whether he saw Father Geve killed with his own eyes. His answer was, ”Yes I stand there when they killed him”. Question 92 asked whether he saw him dead. His answer was, “Yes”. This interview was conducted in the presence of his Solicitor throughout. His answers are consistent with the evidence of Dyell Tati, (CW 16), and Ezekiel Sukulu, (CW 17), in that he knew at Inakona that Harold Keke was going to Haliatu to kill Father Geve and that Harold Keke told him and others to follow him to Haliatu. Dyell Tati, (CW 16), and Ezekiel Sukulu, (CW 17), also said that he also carried a gun. He admitted in his interview that he stood there and saw Father being killed. Dyell Tati, (CW 16), said that when he got off to collect his clothes, Harold Keke and his boys went to talk to Father Geve. Benjamin Ngaovaka, (CW 7), did not see him nor identify him. According to him, he was merely witnessing the murder of Father Geve that day than doing anything else apart from returning to Inakona with Harold Keke. The evidence of Francis Netana, (CW 25), has no more weight than his admissions in his statement in the Police interview. The question to be asked is whether his presence at the scene of murder was innocent or accidental by being no part of the killing of Father Geve. Was he a passing by? To answer this question, I must go to the evidence of Father Francis Lauvata, (CW 30). This witness did not identify any of the boys with Harold Keke than Harold Keke himself. But he saw what they did. He saw them at point C when they walked up to Father Geve sitting under the koilo tree. The boys here must be none other than Ronnie Cawa, Francis Lela and Ben Baku than anyone else. They were the actors. They were three boys, besides Harold Keke for they were the same boys who had come with Harold Keke from Inakona. Francis Lela did not dispute this fact. They walked down to the beach with Harold Keke and Father Geve towards point D where Harold Keke shot Father Geve. They were armed with guns. Father Francis Lauvatu, (CW 30) described them as forming a C shape around Harold Keke with their guns pointing down. He described them as turning their backs to the people and then facing Harold Keke and vice versa. They were clearly Harold Keke’s security men and were guarding him whilst he was dealing with Father Geve. Harold Keke had picked them to accompany him and give him comfort and confidence. He was the gunman in the GLF. He was also close to Harold Keke and Ronnie Cawa in terms of following instructions as comrades-in–arms. I take into account the fact he was simply responding to Harold Keke’ wish to go to kill Father Geve as was the case with Ronnie Cawa. There seems to be the case that Harold Keke had taken on the responsibility himself to kill Father Geve if he admitted writing the second letter. In answer to question 67 in his third interview at the Iron Bottom Sound premises, he said, “...On the same day. Then he told us to follow him to Haliatu...”.

That is acting on instruction from Harold Keke rather than forming a common intention to prosecute an unlawful purpose. I find that there was no agreement with a common purpose to commit an offence under section 22 of the Code. This section does not apply. Francis Lela was not a principal of the first degree as Harold Keke and Ronnie Cawa. He denied shooting Father Geve at any time at Haliatu. That leaves me to apply section 21(c) of the Code. Was he a principal of the second degree as an aider and abettor in the murder of Father Geve? He knew that Harold Keke was going to kill Father Geve that day. In Regina v. Ronny Oeta and Allen Maelalia, Criminal Case No. 173 of 2003, Palmer, CJ at page 5 of His Lordship’s judgment said-

“...The aider and abettor in murder is never going to have the intention to kill. He may, of course, hope or desire that the principal does kill but what needs to be proved is an intention to render assistance to another in the realization that the other may kill and do so deliberately or intending to inflict serious injuries...”.

I have come to the conclusion that Francis Lela did know that Harold Keke was going to kill Father Geve that day. Harold Keke had the means to carry out his intention and that was obvious to Francis Lela. By listening to him, going armed with him, joining him to approach Father Geve at Haliatu and providing security for him when he killed Father Geve and returning with him to Inakona and firing a shot to celebrate the death of Father Geve, can it be said that those steps are not sufficient to constitute evidence of intention to render assistance? Clearly, Francis Lela intended to assist Harold Keke to do whatever he wanted to do with Father Geve. He was assisting the leader of the GLF fulfill his unlawful act of killing Father Geve. What else should I call such steps taken by Francis Lela? Those steps are evidence of giving assistance, confirming the intention to render assistance to Harold Keke. Take for example, a dumb man doing the same thing would be excused from criminal culpability simply because he does not speak so that his intention is revealed? Not necessarily so in my view. Sign language evidence if convincingly elicited against him could result in conviction. Similarly, the fact that Francis Lela never spoke a word about his intention to assist other than what he told the Police in his interviews with Police cannot be taken to be evidence of lack of intention on is part so as to raise reasonable doubt as to his intention. His conduct speaks for itself. That is, intention can be implied by conduct. The law is not such a fool to restrict itself to being inflexible in its application to novel situations, if one of such is the case. Was his presence at Haliatu at the scene of the murder of Father Geve merely accidental or innocent? The Oxford Advance Learners Dictionary of Current English, by A.S. Hornby, 1989, Fourth Edition at page 7, defines the word, “accidental” as meaning, “happening unexpectedly or by chance”. Can it be said in the light of the evidence against Francis Lela that he was at Haliatu witnessing the murder of Father Geve unexpectedly or by chance? Any answer in favour of Francis Lela on that would clearly fly into the face of all the evidence against him in this case. The answer is clearly in the negative. The answer is no. Can it be said that his presence was innocent in the context of simply being a bystander? Was he not guilty of anything that had to do with the death of Father Geve? Again, the evidence against him is to the contrary. He was a member of Harold Keke’s party from Inakona to Haliatu and back to Inakona and he knew the purpose for their going to Haliatu and that for Harold Keke to kill Father Geve. I am sure from the circumstantial evidence that he also fired his gun into the air with Harold Keke, Ronnie Cawa and Ben Baku at Inakona after they returned from Haliatu after the death of Father Geve to celebrate the death of Father Geve. The clear example of a person who was an innocent member of Harold Keke’s party leaving for Haliatu and back to Inakona was Dyell Tati, (CW 16). He went elsewhere when Father Geve was killed. He cannot be a principal of the second degree in the murder of Father Geve. In answer to question 73 in his third interview at the Iron bottom Sound premises, he said that there were plenty people at Haliatu, apart from those sitting under the koilo tree and having food. This suggests that there were people at Haliatu who were also onlookers when Father Geve was shot. They cannot be principals of the second degree in the killing of Father Geve for being onlookers for they would have been innocent onlookers only. Francis Lela clearly was a principal of the second degree in the murder of Father Geve. That is, he aided and abetted in the murder of Father Geve. I therefore find him guilty of murder and convict accordingly. Again, the verdict is that he is guilty of murder. The penalty for murder is imprisonment for life. Harold Keke, Ronnie Cawa and Francis Lela are hereby sentenced to imprisonment for life. I order accordingly. Each of them is of course entitled to appeal against his conviction.

This is a sad case. Father Geve was killed in cold blood. He was unarmed and defenseless when he was killed. He was a very brave man. He never ran. He stood his ground and faced his executioner. It was a waste of human life. Father Geve is gone but the problems of Guadalcanal as believed in by Harold Keke and his likes still remain unsolved. Killing Father Geve or anyone else is clearly not the answer to Guadalcanal’s political and social problems. It is a misunderstanding to think that Father Geve by being in Parliament on behalf of the GLF would have worked a miracle for the GLF. Father Geve alone would not have been able to bring about changes that the GLF would have wanted. One vote in Parliament against the other forty-nine is a loser from day one in the democratic system we have in Solomon Islands. Even all the members for Guadalcanal combined will be a minority in Parliament so it is unfair for anyone in the Weather Coast to blame the members of Parliament for their not being able to bring about changes in the Weather Coast. The same is true for Malaita and other Provinces for that matter. All the members for Malaita combined will still be a minority in Parliament and even less for other Provinces. Co-operation and political solidarity on all major policies amongst all members of the ruling party with a good public service would be the answer in the long term. Short-cuts, division and killing each other cannot and will not work for us. Killing our politicians for not producing the goods is clearly murder. It is the wrong way to bring about progress in our communities. Even if Harold Keke had not killed Father Geve and he got into Parliament with GLF support, he would not alone be able to outstrip Father Geve in any significant way in terms of promoting GLF ideals in the National Parliament. Father Geve must have found this out himself when he got into Parliament that he could not fit into Parliament the GLF ideals. I think he did the right thing to get into Cabinet where Government policies are formulated and executed. That is where he could have used his influence more effectively for his people. He was not given a chance to explain his side of the story. It was unwise of Harold Keke and his consorts to have killed Father Geve. Harold Keke mentioned something about the federal system of government in his evidence. This is currently the rallying point by the Guadalcanal people and the proponents of that system of government. This is a gamble. Little do they know that the Constitution cannot be amended for this purpose unless the bill bringing on the federal system of government receives the support of three quarters of all the members of the National Parliament on two separate readings of the bill in Parliament? It only takes thirteen members of the National Parliament to vote against or abstain from voting in favour of the bill for it not to pass. I hope that if that happens, we do not start killing our politicians simply because some of them do not support the federal system of government in Parliament or there be another conflict to force the issue. That is what democracy is all about. We must not forget that the National Parliament belongs to all the people of Solomon Islands. When it speaks, it does so for all the people of Solomon Islands.

F.O. Kabui
Acting Chief Justice