Thursday, 15 January 2009 3:31 PM

Sir Allan Kemakeza

Dear Sir,
I wish to respond very briefly to Tesua who made himself out to be the know it all God-send interpreter of the Constitution and other subsidiary legislations governing the conduct of each of the three arms of government.

If Tesua is man enough with sufficient intelligence, he would and should know what Parliament did was very selective in the application of section 51 of the Constitution.

If no selective application was utilized [and my belief, having spoken at length with knowledgeable people on the subject] that it was, then the same treatment allowed under section 51 should have been used in the case of former MP for East Honiara.

In this case, Parliament never did. The reason is omniously obvious. The MP for East Honiara belonged to the Opposition, Sir Allan belonged to the opposite side of the political spectrum - and the government has the number to pass the motion.

Law is about justice. And justice is about fairness.

In the matter beforehand, there was no fairness, hence justice was void in so far as the former MP for East Honiara was concerned.

Why is the MP for East Honiara treated differently?

This is the dilemma I have. In the case of the former MP for East Honiara, the matter was left entirely to the judiciary. Not Sir Allan's case. Why?

Separation of powers? I bet it was.

I'm afraid that if the likes of Tesua were to enter parliament, we are certain to see a bumpy ride in the application of the law to suit

Over to you, Tesua

Alfred Sasako

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this letter/article are those of Alfred Sasako and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of Solomon Times Online.

Other Letters to the Editor All Letters
By STEVE BANI Vura Heights, East Honiara
By GEOFFREY MAURIASI USP, Lacuala Campus, Fiji
By CHARLES KOULI Gizo, Western Province