Dear editor,

I might be suffering from literacy fatigue as Sasako puts it; however I wish to inform readers of the true fact about Dausabea and the reasons why he was not given the same privilege as Parliament did to Sir Allan. As we all know Hon Dausabea was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment on 21 April 2008 and he did filed an appeal. I know that Dausabea on 21 May 2008 write a letter to the Speaker seeking approval for an extension for 30 days as required under the Constitution in which he was given the extension until June 20 2008. This was his first request. The assertion that Dausabea applied twice for extension need to be clarified, in fact the second application for another 30 days was not made by Dausabea himself as required under the Constitution. Instead it was made by Dausabea's legal representative on behalf of Dausabea. Readers should be informed that the responsibility of seeking the Speaker's approval for an extension lies solely with the MP in this case Dausabea. This is not a task that a member or Dau can delegate to anyone not even a legal representative. As far as I know the letter from Dau's legal representative was dated 18 June 2008 and was received by the Speaker's office on 23 June 2008. Clearly the letter arrived outside of the expiration date of 20 June 2008.

There are two issues that readers need to be reminded of. One, technically Dau did not applied TWICE for extension as Sasako seemed implied. His second application for extension was made on Dausabea's behalf by a legal representative. This is contrary to Section 51 of the Constitution. The second issue is the timing of the second letter, the letter was not received within the 30 days as required instead was received 3 days late that was on 23 June 2008. Thus even if the Speaker has the discretionary power under section 51 he would be acting outside of his powers if he granted another 30 days extension, because the letter written and singed on behalf of Dausabea by his legal representative seeking for another 30 days extension arrived outside of the timeframe as required under the Constitution.

As to why Parliament did not resort to a motion like in the case of Sir Allan. My simple answerer would be, did Dausabea ask for one? As far as I know Dausabea did not ask for a resolution from Parliament, whereas Sir Allan asked Parliament for a resolution.

My mention of Peter Shannel in the pervious posting has nothing to do with the basis of his conviction but purely because his application for extension was declined by the Speaker on the same ground as Dausabea. That is the only reason why his name was mentioned in the earlier posting.