A little bit of learning is a dangerous thing

Views: 84

By Alfred Sasako

TRUTH is what everyone seeks – in court and or in other jurisdictions of authority – in order to satisfy those who seek it.

It is, at times elusive. In most times, though, it catches the unprepared off guard. A case in point is a Mr Tepuke Pautangata’s writings on the outcome of HCSI-CC 243 of 2015.

As it turned out, Alexander Pope’s statement has been proven to be true again by Tepuke Pautangata, the law student from Honiara.

In his letter which was published in the Solomon Star on July 24, 2018, Pautangata who was apparently unconstrained by the facts or law, sought to set out his understanding of proceedings to which he was not a party and which would appear to have been written without reference to the documents which were filed and are able to be reviewed, if the Court file was in fact inspected by him.

If that was not enough, Pautangata saw fit to assert “suspicions” about the trampling of the case from his imperfect state of knowledge and to seek an explanation by either the Court or the AG of what occurred.

If the time was taken to understand Court process or to inspect the Court file for HCSI- CC 243 of 2015, Pautangata would have been confronted with the truth that the proceedings had in fact been commenced by APID, not the AG. As the proceedings were commenced by APID, they could be discontinued by it at any time.

Pautangata would have ascertained that the issue in the case was a show cause notice that was issued to APID and that at no stage of the proceedings was APID’s mining lease ever at risk of being cancelled. He also would have observed that the registration of the land in West Rennell was not mentioned.

The Court file shows that the AG did not seek any relief in the proceedings which would maintain any injunctive orders of the kind stated in Pautangata’s letter and the orders recited by him in his letter were set aside, following an application and appeal. Accordingly, they do not stand and cannot be relied upon

The Court does not provide explanations of cases to bystanders in answer to their letters to the editor of newspapers.

It makes judgement and orders which are published and are able to be inspected by those who care to know what happened.

error: Content is protected !!