The comments made by Bradz Tau in that the Facilitation Act 2003 protects RAMSI officials carries very "little water". It is this type of generalizations that give the wrong impression of the nature of the whole idea of the immunity provisions to the general populace. As such, such generalization by Bradz Tau is dangerous. The fact is that the immunity provision cannot be read on its face value. Hence, Bradz Tau need to go further than his generalizations to hit a point that "carry some water".
While I appreciate the comments by Bradz Tau from a general perspective, it is important to understand that there is a difference between actions by RAMSI officials done during the course of work and those that are done outside of official hours. The aforementioned standpoint is clearly mentioned in the case: Nori v Attorney General and Others. This simple distinction is important for the people of Solomon Islands like Bradz Tau to fully understand otherwise they give the wrong message to their people.
I need not extrapolate from there; however, I await any reply on the part of Bradz Tau.
RAMSI accusations unfair true?
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this letter are those of Detone in Vila and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of Solomon Times Online.
What do you think? Any Comments?
Comment here or write your own Letter to the Editor.
Disclaimer: Solomon Times Online may edit or delete your comment and cannot guarantee that all submissions will be published or remain online. The comments expressed on these page are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of Solomon Times Online.