Attorney-General rejects Opposition claims, defends decision in Kalu case and denies political influence
The Office of the Attorney-General has noted the media statement issued by the Leader of the Opposition regarding the matter of Kalu v Attorney-General and the Judicial and Legal Service Commission (JLSC).
The statement by the Official Opposition indicates that the allegations and assertions made against the Attorney-General were published without any attempt to verify the facts with the Office of the Attorney-General. The allegations raised were merely speculative and assumptive from unconfirmed reports.
The Attorney-General rejects any assertion that his professional advice or actions have been influenced by political direction or considerations. Such speculation should not be published to score political point.
Although the Attorney-General receives instructions from the Executive Government, he has to weigh and balance any instruction given to him against the need to uphold rule of law and to protect public interest.
The Attorney-General has exercised his constitutional duty professionally, objectively and without fear or favour. He is, therefore, not influenced by the wishes of any individual or political office.
The Attorney-General made his decision after assessing the facts and evidences and formed the conclusion that Solomon Kalu was wrongly prevented from taking the position of Director General of Solomon Islands Independent Commission Against Corruption.
The Attorney-General is aware that the decision made by the Judicial Legal Services Commission was based on the point that Solomon Kalu refused to accept the Government policy on religious beliefs and convictions, that is NO JAB, NO JOB.
Attorney-General is aware that the policy has been reversed by the previous Cabinet, and so it is unreasonable to hold that policy against an individual.
The Counsel from AGC in charge of the matter had informed the Counsel representing Solomon Kalu and Sol-law that settlement of the case would not mean automatic appointment of Solomon Kalu. Rather Solomon Kalu would still be required to lodge a fresh application.
Since the Chairman of the Judicial and Legal Service Commission is the Chief Justice himself, the most appropriate course of action is to settle the matter through the usual legal process.
It would be wrong for the Attorney-General to advise the Judicial Legal Services Commission on the matter when the Commission is already represented by Sol-law. However, the Government would be spending money unnecessarily on paying Sol-law exorbitant fees when the matter can be settled amicably.
It appears that the Official Opposition is scared of Solomon Kalu taking the position of Director General of Solomon Islands Independent Commission Against Corruption.
PRESSS RELEASE
