Monday, 19 January 2009 9:49 AM

Sir Allan Kemakeza

Dear Sir,
Abraham Dumusiko's argument seems to be from someone suffering literacy fatigue.

Peter Shanell's case should never be brought into the debate because the basis for his conviction was totally different. Any husband would have done what Peter did. I feel for him.

It was perhaps very unfortunate that the court did not adequately take into account[in mitigation] the fact that he acted the way he did, perhaps on the spur of the moment, in trying to protect his wife.

Any man, [me and Mr. Dumusiko included] would have done the same.

So his case is totally different.

I do know the former MP for East Honiara did apply and the Speaker in accordance with his discretionary powers in section 51 of the Constitution had granted Charles Dausabea the extension, not once but TWICE. Readers must be aware that the Speaker's discretionary powers is limited to a maximum of 150 days only.

The nagging question is when Mr. Dausabea was applying for the extension, why did not Parliament come up with the motion it did last December?

This is the difference. Parliament could have come up with the motion during Charles Dausabea's appeal process. It did not.

The question is: WHY?

Law or the application thereof, as I said before, is about [or supposedly] justice and fairness.

In the case of the matter being debated here, both fundamental elements of the law, that is to say, justice and fairness, appear to be wanting.

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 GEOFFREY MAURIASI USP, Lacuala Campus, Fiji
By CHARLES KOULI Gizo, Western Province
By JAQUE FRIEDMAN New Zealand