Transcript
GEOFFREY EAMES: I was removed from my post of Chief Justice by this government in what was a very clear breach of the rule of law and a contempt of court as well. That has never been acknowledged and never addressed. So the situation today remains much as it was at that time and that is where there are serious questions about the government's commitment to the rule of law and independence of the judiciary. And the independence of the judiciary is an absolutely critical pre-requisite for any appellate court.
DON WISEMAN: This is exactly the wrong thing for them to be doing At this point in time?
GE: No, no I am all in favour of there being a Court of Appeal comprising eminent jurists with impeccable qualifications and independence. That's been a serious need for many years. What's critical what is the model that is being chosen out of the many models of appeal courts that could be chosen, and in what way is the government going to ensure that the process is indeed and transparent one. There are many people who have serious reservations about the government's commitment to those principles. .
DW: How do you establish that independence? How do you put it at one remove from government control.?
GE: Well I think one thing you don't do, after I was removed the government announced through one of its ministers that new judges were going to be put on three year contracts which were to be reviewed by the government each six months. Now I have been given information suggesting that the contracts of new judges do in fact have that clause or condition to them. If that is so then that is the most blatant breach of independence that you could imagine because judges would be constantly looking over their shoulders to see if they were upsetting the government with their decisions. If that's confirmed I think that would be a very serious matter on which the independence of the whole appeal process would hang.
DW: They have had quite a few judges since you were removed. Have they had quality judges in your view, in that time?
GE: I don't want to comment on that. What I will say is that they had an absolutely wonderful magistrate there, who was independent, strong and very competent. And she had the misfortune to sit and hear cases on charges that had been brought against members of the previous government. She imposed sentences of imprisonment that the Minister of Justice regarded as so outrageously light that he attacked her in the House and her contract was not renewed. So where judges have shown strong independence and ability they have not received the respect that they deserve and that must be imposed in a judicial system.
DW: So supportive but some significant elements still need to be put in place.
GE: Well I would like to see the details of the proposal. I commissioned a very extensive survey of the range of options and it's a complex matter. And if it is going to succeed and if the role of the High Court of Australia is going to be removed, then it is absolutely necessary to ensure that those who will be taking the place of what would have been the High Court of Australia, as appellate judges, are of the same high standard of judiciary as the High Country had.
DW: And most of those judges would then presumably have to come out of places like Australia.
GE: Well that would seem to me to be the most likely source. Australia and New Zealand have in the past been the sources for the judiciary and that is one of the reasons why I am annoyed about the statements about the Court of Appeal. Whilst I very much applaud the creation of a Court of Appeal, the motivation for it, and the matters which led to it being introduced by the government have been quite blatantly politicised. The Minister of Justice in his statement last week said the government, in introducing its reforms to the legal system, including the Court of Appeal, was dealing with what under previous governments had been a legal system riddled with cronyism and corruption. Now they are outrageous allegations and plainly must be referring to me because I was the Chief Justice and the only judge of the Nauru Supreme Court at the time when I was removed from office. That suggestion that a Court of Appeal has been brought in to deal with corruption by people like myself is an absolutely outrageous slur and one which this government has flung around in the past. And I challenged them on it and asked for details on it and they said 'No, no the comments aren't applying to you.' Well I am sorry I am the only member of the judiciary - myself and the resident magistrate.
The legislation has yet to complete its path through parliament but the Nauru Government enjoys a substantial majority in the legislature.
A spokesperson for the 19 people charged with offences following an anti-government protest nearly three years says they believe the legislation is suspicious, given their lengthy legal case, as it stands, could result in appeals to the Australian High Court.
