I I

IN T ilL Sllt>I{[J,It: CUUIU' OF TONC,\

CIV Il. jlJRlSDICT!ON.

NUKlJ'!\LOF!\ REGISTRY.

JUDICIAL R!NIEW.

SIONt: TE!SlN,\ FIFIT,\

t\ N U t\·IINISTL:R OF POUU:

AND ' l'lJEKINGOOi\·lOI;·t·oNc;i\

LEWIS .J.

llearing 21 1\prill<Jl)S.

Judgment 13 December 1995.

Plaintiff in person.

t\lrs. A. Taumoepeau for the Dden<.Jants.

j U D G IVI E NT

N< )S.C. I ( )-J.<)/ l t)t)-1-.

,.\ND.C.b 1-J./ I <J<)-J..

fllainLirr

L Sl ueren<..l:..tnt

~nJ Del'enJants

judicial review is sought by the Plaintil'f (who is unrepresented) or the

c irc um stances leading to the Plaintiff then a n :\ssistant Superinte ndent of

Priso ns res igni·pg from the service.

The Plaintiff alleges that he received a letter from the Minister o f Police

dated the 4th February 1991 ·requiring him to take one of two courses:-

• resign or

• suffer dismissal.

1

-~ -n•""'"' If • A

Tile Plain til 'f ~lh<> allcw~s thi.ll t lw Jt.:mand amo unteJ l <> the l' lct intifl's

cunstructive Ji s mi ssal !'rum the ser\'ice by th e f\ linistcr or Pu lice the Fi rs t

Def'e mbnt anJ by the KingJom uf' Tonga. the SeronJ Def'entlan l. The t\ ppl ic.Hion

for juJicial re ' iew is rnaJe pursuant to e.'\ pa rte lea,·e granteJ by thi s <·oun for

juJirial re,·iew t lll !~ Nun: mber I t)<)...J..

There are so me u tbe 1· prel iminary ma llc rs tn " ·hic-h refe ren ce neetls be

maJe in this juJgment which J o no t appe:1r tu ha,·e been attcn JcJ tu b,· the

ranies Juring the pre- tri a l procecJings. They are: -

Tile applic:1tion uf the Plaintiff to amenJ rlcaJings rikJ 13

December 94.

• Th e application o f the Plaintiff to obtain juJgment in Jda ult ol'

Ddencc f'il eJ 12.1.'9) .

• The Applica tio n by the Pla intifT tu han: l'iles <.tma lgamateJ l'ileJ

l.L'<)S.

Taking each in turn: -

• Application to t\menJ

The Applicaton J oes no t com p ly with the requireme nts o f' practice

Jirec tion 1/95 . It sho ulJ . Th(; app lication was nei ther prcsseJ by

the Plainti!T nor npposed by the DefcnJants. It is merely to correc t

minor erro rs. The applica tion is re f'useJ.

• Application for Default ludgment

The RSC Order 13 Govern the s itua ti nn. The Plaint iff may not have I

judgment pursuant to this rule unles.~ he has proveJ the

substa ntive allegations from which a Jeclaratory judgment can be

entered. This Application refuseJ.

• Amalgamation

This is a non-contentious ·application sensibly made in the inte r es ts

of efficiency. It is ordered that ,

2

riles :'-IOU.!> [ ~, lJ~ ~md ](q<J, ' J~ be ~llllalgam~lted under the

number I> l ~/ 'l-L

v

Tile gra' a men ol" the co mplaint or the l'L.tintill is tha t by adm ini s trat i\"e

arti<Jll in semling to the Plaintiff the lette r JateJ ~ 1:e hrua ry l ') 1) I reljuiring him

to resign or be JismisseJ, bo th Defendants anJ in particular the ,\ linis te r o l·

Po lice ("Cl llStrunin~ly dismi.sseJ the Jllaintill. The k ite r reads <.IS r()l lt)\\ S:-

"Dear Sir,

I, with respec t want to conn!y to you, that I han~ re, ·iel,·eJ e, ·ery

part o r your work as regardi ng the serious warning maJc Lt> you o n the

12 July, l ')90 anJ there has been no progress.

Therefore, I will recommenJ your dismissal to I li s i\ la jesty''i Cabinet,

from the prison's department.

I am giving you now a last chance to \\"rite a lette r o r 1·es ignat ion

today, if you want to, so that you will have the chance to seek \\·ork at

other d epartments. If you won' t accep t thi s, I will then go CJ ll to s u bmit

my submission to Cabine t a s I have me ntio ned.

cc: Prison's Su peri n tendent.

Yo urs Respect fu lly.

(SgJ) '/\kau'() la

i\ linister of Po lire & Priso ns .

I rind that as a con sequence of hi s receipt or the letter. th e Plaintifl

tenJer ed his resignation. -(para ~9.Piaintiff's Affida\'i t dated L 9 December 1994)

/\nd sought o the r work. I

The evidence forming the basis o f this review is in affiuavit form wit h

additional oral evidence being received from one Semisi Tapuelue lu presently

the superintenden of prisons, Kingdom of Tonga, called as a witnesses by the

Defendant and T.T.Uepi a former Superintendent of Prisons called by the

3

l' htin ti ll. Ill <.: p~trt i<.:s ~tr e ct ) : r~c:J :hat t il<.: .·c, u rt ;n~<.: ha\ c n : l<.:rc: lll 't! to the

a lliJa\ its, tu tht: n r a l eviJencr.: bd(lrc Lhe t '() Url .t llll tc1 t he tkpartmt:ntal rile

rroJuccJ by the l)efenJants ill making its ranu~tl Jt:terminatiuns.

ril e J ifl(:rc nrc betwee n clll ;.tr pe~t l rrnm a juJiral deris ion a nJ judi cial

r e, ·iew is exrlaitH:J in CII ILF CONST/\BI.l: OF 1·111 . :--J(JHTI I \V;\LLS l10l..ICl '. t;V,\NS

( l lJ82) 3 ,\1.1.1:1{ 1-tl by LmJ Brightman who saiJ,

"I ... turn to the proper purp(>SC ur th<.: remeJy u l" juJicial re\·ie\\·,

\\hat it is anJ wha t it is not. In my (>rin io n t he law was ,·u r rer tly

s lated in the speech o r lord l\·ersheJ in l{iJge v. l3alJ\\·in ll lJ <>-J.I AC

...J.() at lJG. !lis was a dissenting judgment but the Jisscn t \\·as no t

concerned with this p o int. Lo rd E\·crsheJ rderred Lu ... " ,. \ Janger

uf' us urpatio n o l' power 011 Llle part ()r Lh e courts unJer Lhe pre tex t

o f' having regard to the p rinciples nf' na tural justice. I d o t>bscn·e

again that it is not the J ccisio n as s uch \\' hirh is li<..tble to reY iew it

is on ly the circums tances in which th e d ecision was reacheJ a nd

particularly in s uc h a case as the p resent t he need f'o r gh ·ing Lu the

party dismissed an o pportunity f'or pu lli n g his case." juJkial

review is con cerned no t with the d ec is io n . b u t 1\'ilh the J ccis io n­

makin g process. Unless that r estriction un th e po\\'e r n r t he court

is observcJ, the court will in my ,·ie\,., u nder the guise ur

rreventing the abuse or power, be itself' gui lt y tlf' usurp ing

power."

The Plaintiff in th is r-c,·icw t:arri cs t he c\· iJ e nti;.try burJcn as \\'e ll as the

pc rsuash·e burJcn or proof <J il th e balance t>f pro ba bilities.

The instrument of p urpurteJ J ismissal is the letter dated -+ h~brua ry L lJ9 1

fr o m the ivtinis ter o r Po lice to the Plaintiff. It is tcnJcrcd by consent. Nei ther

DefenJant o bjects to evidence o f the co nte nts or the effect o f t he le tter. It is

central to the Plaintif('s complaint. It is the essence or the De renee· of both

De l'e ndants.

4

'1 11 tlll:ir pan till: 1J11iy t.: \·iJen n .: pl<t r ~J : H.: !• .> I"l: l it e ··()un b; the Ddt.:tH.lant:;

is tl! c t1 ral ~uHJ a lliJa\ ·it e\ · idenr ~ tli' the "!tJH.:ss Sc mi s i l'...t. pu e luc l u <tnd the

Jepanmenul ril e relating to the Pbi ntilT.

l hc l'oiiDwing narrath·e .'iets o ut the l<trts as I l'i nd t he! JJ tn he o n t he

bala n c<.: o r probabiliti es l!a\·ing regard to th e \\' llok or the e\·idenct.:. T h <.:

l'laintill at trial was ageJ 3(J year'i a nJ a !l igh Sl'lw u l teac her by tHT UJXtt iun.

The Plain lilT married in l ')77 . In I\ larch l ')7H he <.t pplieJ for anJ obtaineJ

employment wi th the prisons department o r the i\linis try o f P<~ li re. In I')~() he

was inv ited by the Superintendent o f Prisons. I the rather of the !'lai n till) to

take leave without pay to unJertake slUJics. lie JiJ so. 1\t the l·o nc lus io n o ['

those s tuJics he was aJmitted to a l3achclo r of ,\ns Degree in II uman Serdccs by

the Unive rsity or llawaii.

lie returncJ to the priso n sen· ice anJ to a new post createJ fur him. l 1c

was promotcJ !'rom Prisons CaJet O!Ticer to ass istant SuperintcnJent or Priso ns

!one or two su r h appointments) on 2-J. july 198'). By now he rankeJ third in the

prison hierarchy.

O n th e acco unt given by the Plaintill he \\·as r equire J tn attend a

conference for com missioned o fficers o r both the pr-isons anJ Polire sen·ice to

be held on ll july 1990. The Pla intiff did no t attend but on that Jay he attended

Vaiola llospital and the Central Po lice Sta tion. While at the Pol ice Stati o n he

received a message that the Minister of Police required his attenJance at the

co nference. On ce there h e was tolu by hi s immed iat e superior then

Superintendent of Prisons (the witness T.T. Uepi) that the 1\l ini s ter intenJed to

insist upon the Plaintiff taking o ne o f three alternative courses or action. Ue pi

advised the Pl<.\intifT to "Take the Minister's AdYire" anJ that they \\'O UIJ "Talk it

over ;\J'terwarus."

The Plaintiff says that when the ty!inister arrived at the conference the

Mnister expressed dissatisfaction with the behaviour or the Plaintiff towards hi s

superior (Superintendent Uepi) and offered the Plaintiff three a lternatives:-

5

.a iksig11.

" Tribunal II ea t·i ng. "

Tile <.HC<> Unt gi,·en by th t.: l'laintill or these e..-en ts is rcmarkabk, mad e

lllOI"e SO het"~lU SC it is burn e ll llt by what appc:..u·.•; l Cl h e tiJe minutes n f th e

confere nce. i\ loreover the crown Lakes nu issue 1\· it l! tht.: e \ ·it.lcn ce . am

sa ti s l"i et.l t hat the indt.lent occurct.l as is rcc o rt.l cd in ~he m inutes or the

co nfe r en ce. It is t.liffi r ult to resist the though t th<lt a conference is <.lll unus ua l

pl<1ce for a f\ lini stcr or the Crown to rcmonstmte \\·ith a Senior OITicc r unt.ler his ~-----·

1\ linis try. It is even more unus u al that the comments ur the 1\linister <1rc

recort.let.l in the minutes when the comments appear to have no r ele,·<.mce to the

co nference theme excep t in the broadest sense. T he Jcl"cnce su bm its th a t it \\"J.S

a l"orerunncr o r wha t was to follow on -J. February Jl) l) I .

In .-\ugust or 19<)() Su pcr intent.lant Uep i reportcJ to the i\·linistc r of Po lice

as ro llo\\ s: -

To :

Saving No:

Dear Sir,

Prison's Supe r intendent

lio n. Minister of Police

GaoV 1/ 1 L -08 Date: 14.08. L l)90.

INFORI\·Ii\TION 1\EC,\1\Dil'!(; .-\SP Fl r!T/\ ST.

l write this leller with r espect a nJ to conn!y this informa tio n

regarding t\S P Hfita ST ~ls accor d ing to the t.lecbion mat.le on him th r o ugh

the mercy of your ho nour in regardin g the one in 3 opt ions that 1\SP

l:il"ita asked l"or during t he Police and Pr isons ant.l r irc Senio r Ol"ricers" \

co nference in .July , 1990.

Your Ilonour decided in your serio us advice tha t he w rite and state

hi s apo logy and sun-ender that he won't go through the path o r

disobedien ce and that h e must keep to the rules o r the departmen t a nd

tha t he be obedient a nd other things tha t yo u warnet.l 1\SP Fifita on.

6

,\(kr t il l: · · • dll ~ n.::H·~ -,,c :·...:t ur:H:d , ,, il u \ it,d i t<> li pn;..,()IJ a nJ

mntin ued with iuol--.i n g l"o :· Lllc <..:~ < .lp~J pri s< 111er 1:1();'-i,\ lf\.I:T.\ ll .111J

I tu iJ h im in m y meet ing that he g<• \\·ith -;om~ (Jr the lll"ricers

lu u k in g l"o r t he r ri so ners a n J ,\d. l'ri'iun Ollke r ' .:\hole lei t. o g<,

w it h a n o the r <·lass .tnJ in rar ry in14 ti UL t h a t Juty , he went a n J

t·arri eJ o u t amJ IJ~ su b mi tted to m e his il.'Lll:r (Jj" apiJitJgy -; h u,,·n

abiJve anJ I aga in tu iJ h im that h~ must k~q> to hi s ,,·nrJs that he

p raycJ to the t-. lin is tcr a n J th a t he must IJbey th~ Jcrision maJc by

the i\ linis t cr :..t bu ut him a ml t=if"it ~l keeps to it ur tn toJay l -t."otV 1)(J

and I a lso w id /\ SP t:ifita that he must Jo accl)rd ing to the Jcr isi n n

a lre ad y r ece ived !"ro m th e i'- linis ter ,,r the :\ lini st ry a n d t=il"ita sa iJ

tha t h e u nders tands a nd h e \\·ill 1J be; ~tn d kee p u 1 it.

[n co n cluJin g m y te ller, I CIH' It tse the letter o l" ,t\Sl' ri fi ta

regarJing a ll his sh o rt comings anJ that he ,,.<, n ' t repeat again.

i\ nJ tha t h e has a civ il case \\"ith a priso ner 'lbn i l.atu. al"tcr t hat

t here w iil be n o thing e ls e concerni n ~ h im a n d he ,,·ill he

com plet e ly free tu carry o ut hi s Ju ty Ill t h e dept.

This is the nature o l" th e du ty carried o ut by 1\SP Fi f"ita , it is

b uilding up a mi hav e J eparted rrom his \\"ays in th e pos t , a n J n o \\"

h e is pay ing m ore a tte ntio n to his 1mrk.

f. ifi ta.

h o pe that I ha\·e men tion ed someth ing rega r d ing r\SP

7

Yo urs 1\espec tfull y

(Sgd ) T e\·i ta T. Uep i

Pr ison Superinlc nJc nt."

.-\S I' hfi ta ST 1·1"1 Jill:

l 't ): Superintenuent ni' l'rhnn 'i

l>atc: ICJ.· ()-;- I ' J' IO.

H.l . \1'( )J.()( ;y

I k:a r Sir ,

I respect.full y give my apology lt> ~ - c> u haseJ 1>11 all tile 'ilH>rt

rnm ings in carry ing o ut my du ties to the gm·c rn ment or Tu puu bu t \\·h ic h

is upon your shoulders .

;\ II short comings won' t happen again <.m u I ree l g re ~\t lou2 fo r you

a nJ the department. You wi ll unuerstanu the repentent heart anJ true

apo lugy at the time of carrying duties.

I pray anJ ho pe f'o r l'o rgivcness fro m you as my boss.

Yours 1\espcctfully ,

(SgJ) Sio ne Te istna Fil'ita

i\Ss istant Superintendent or

Prisons

The Plaintiff submits that the court sho uiJ ri nd tha t the reasons give n

him in the lette r of 4 February 19<) l for his Ll ismissai a re not the same reasons

given him a t the time o f the so-calleJ minis teria l \\'arni n g at the Poli ce

confere nce in .July 1990. In my opinio n the LliiTcrences a re minor. Not o nly I

was he made aware of the reasons he wrote an abject letter of apology whic h is

in ter polated a bove with Sup. Uepis Repo rt.

The Plaintiff says that h e took the ad vice of s uperinte ndent Uepi and

accepted the Minister's a dv ice (and refo rmed. ). The /\Jliuavit o f the Plaintiff is

s ile nt co ncernin g wha t it _was about his prol'essio n a l lil'c that the Pla intiff

reformed o r h ow he wen t about it. T he Plaintiff su ggests that the d eputy

8

supcn lll c !IUC!lL ·!I t ile Ja~. '.l .'i c tl l l! ~ 1lllin: 11 · ! ., , ., ~~ rh c i 'r i 'i lll1 ' lllk·: r··; t' ' •;h u n

anJ Di sn:~;p•..:t \., him. 1\ lr. l:irit<t \ ' ~\·ide nct: ··· Hll ,l!ll '> n:!"crc ntT S t•, hi ~ <n\ 11

l o n gsL.tnuiii !~ pr()kss io nJ.l p rop r iet y anJ Ltl\ ~ tbiJ i ng "·~1y s ~u1d t h~lt t hi s

trcatnH.: nt ,, r him hy the i\ lini s tc t· was unjust . 1\Tll tl g ~1nd 11~.: c l~1ims. in' o tn:J ,1

d <.: IIi ~~~ () r n <.llll r a I jus l ir c-

l' ltc t.: \ ·idcncc 11 1' tile l'lainti ll is si lent 1 <Jill' t: r nin g ~t tl )" itll ·iu t.: nt 11r

inciuenl.•; 1\"ltidl itl ht.'i u piniun may ha\·e nwti\ dtt:J t h t: 1\ lini s tcr I ll" <lil Y or his

s ure ri n r <; Lc, kt\ t: rcprimandt:J him c;.;cert hh e\·iJt:n ce· whirh contains t h e

implil:ati on that it \\'<.lS Ji:; likc by others in t he priso n sen·inc! cuupleJ 11·ith hi s

J'ailu re tn attenu t h e commiss ioneu o f ficers ' c•.ml't:n:n cc " ·hic h teJ not on ly to

lhe public rcprima nu but to the ins isten ce nr the ~ linistt:r ,o.;ome 'ii .\ months later

that h e rt:sign 1>r be Jis missed.

l'hc !'11 rego in g factors arc s trictly " nH:rits" mattt:rs 1\'hil"h m~ty onl;.

Jetcrmine the barkgrounJ to the aJminis trati\l.: s tep unucr complaint. l'ht:y are

not the J e tcrminant o r thi s rt:\"ie\\", What is tll l! "dcrii:iiOll m a king process"

com p lained o f here" Th e J>laintifl'' s comp lain t ;·a n h.c Jer in:d !'rom t h e

St;lte m e nt ni' c lailll para 15.

l repeat. his co mplaint in essence seems to be that he " ·as Jenieu natura l

justice by IIOt being given any parti c ularity o r ho\\' h e hau ofl e nueu ~tnu by

being uenie u the o ppo rtunity to answer c h a r ges o r al legat ions or im propri e ty.

In his afliuavit sworn on 28 Februar~ · l IJ!JS , Scmisi Ta puc luel u the 11 () 1\­

Supe rintenuent of Prisons sets o ut al legations or ani\· iti es by t he Plaintirr

whic h if true ami proven to be true in a tribunal 1\'CJulu in a ll p robability ha,·e

leu to the Llismissal o f the PlaintifL The Plaintil"f properl y points <> Ut that the

allega ti o ns are professionally o [ the m os t serious kin<..l b ut they are <.ll1u can o nly

be h earsay cvi <..le n ce. The a ffi<..lavit o f the 1\'itness Tapuelue lu has tHl an nexures

a ltho u gh corrtspon<..l cn cc and reports arc constantly rderrcJ to in it. T h e

correspon<..lence 1\'ould seem to be highly relcYant to the revi c\\' bcf'o r e t his

court. Although it has been left unclear by counsel and by the Ptaintill, !'vir.

Tapueluelu says that "Official Records" were the source of the information in his·

affidavit. I find it probable that some of the personal l"ile of the Plaintiff was

the source material for the affidavit of Tapueluelu. In a n y event a goo<..l d eal o f

Tapucluelu 's a fli<..lavit is merely merits related.

9

PlainLiiL

Th e l'laintill cla im s tu ha' e been ' ' ru n ged n.:g~trdlt: ss !J I the truth o r

othen,i se 11f the allegati()ns ;.~ga inst him. !he \ \T!JI1g hL! t·laims i-; .ts 'it!l o ut in

hi s s tatement ol" claim. On eith er account 1ll. t.:\ e n t'> he <"<l ll tl! nds th<.ll the

ci rcums tances leading lo hi s resigna tion ~llll< lU ill S 111 ~ ~ d l!n ia l 11f natu ral jus tice .

l' ro,·is ion is malic 111 till! prison s a ct !< ~tp .31d ami ru ll!s f11 r till! Jis<·ip lin e

and dismissal u f prison ollicl!rs including ~-!> 111llliss i oncd 1dlin.:rs . :--;t.•<· ti u n l 5 o f

the act pro\'ides for a court of inquiry fo r majll r ll !Tcnn.:s by p r iso n o lli rers.

"i\lajo r UITenrcs" is no t defined in the ar t.

!Zule 7l or lhe ru les pursuant to the pri sons art in paniru la r su b-rule ( 28 )

renders an y subordinate o llit:er liable Lt.' prl!sr ribcd pun ishment by th e

t-- fini stcr o f Police .

IZule 1)7 pru,·ides: -

"~7. :\II Officers mus t b l! o f good nwral princ iples and

unblemisheJ chracter; into:-Jrat ion nr disreputable co nduct

o f any kiml will render an officer liable to immediate

dismissal."

The phrase "Immediate Dismissal" , must in my u pinio n be ,-icweu as

meaning immediate subject to the constraints uf t he natura l jus tice princ iples.

In the d ecision o f this court KAK/\LA /\ND OTII U\S , . TilE KIN C;DOI\1 or: TONGA

( 1994) 117/93 , Ward Cj, dclh·ercd 3 1 i\larch l ~) 1)~ a m.! in particular a t p.b , De ntal

T herap ists sought leave a JHJ obtained judicial re\ iew o l' th e dl!rision o l' cabine t

concerning a review of their status and pay.

Ward 0] at 6 said:-

" I raised the question o f the courts ~)0\\·er to rcvic\\· a d ecision o f

Cabinet but having considered the matter further, I a m satisfied my

concern was misplaced. When Cabinet makes p o'l icy decisions in

relation to the government o f the count ry, the court would not

have a right of review .... but in Tonga, the laws provide that the

decisions of cabinet arc much wider ami include m a ny decisions

10

l '

· -.! l!c ll, ill •'the::· jun <.d i,·t i<J il 'i. ·_.,,,u!L! !'c l ll ~td c h~ \ li lli .'>t c r'> .111d l hci r

\ I i 11 is L r..: r i a I S 1 a I I . I ' ll1 g a 1s un u :-. u ~11 · tllli p' 1 "-; 1 I' I ~- II lli q u c i 11 1 he

in ' ,J!,·e m <.: Jll o f Cabinet ill the ~en c r ~tl ~tdminhlr~tli() n Ill th<.: publi c

'it.: n irc. 1\ la t tt.:r.S ')U('IJ as f1<1Y Jisripiitll: .. lf1p1l in t1Jll'!ll .tnJ Jisllli Ssal

•d' 1.:\ 't.:n j unior rub lic servants a rc ('~lh i n e l dt.:l ' iSif>llS . WLTe the y

maue by a 1\ !inis ter they \\'u ui J u nJ,> u htcJiy he -;uhjcct lu 1·e, ie•.,

a nt..l th e lart that th ey arc maLic by~~ h()dy 1>1 :'- linis tc:-s diJes llf >L

remu, ·e that protectiun ,,·here t he p1l\\c r is gh-e 11 h) sta t ut e () r

regulatio ns maJc unucr a s tatute . ,\ n , · exercise ·(){' a s tatu ton· no\\'er

is rc,·iewablc, although, as has ;,tlrcLlu\· been st;,t tcd, surh rc\ it.:\\

J ocs not empower the court to rcco n.siJer the m erits or t he decisiun

itsclr but o nlv the m a n ner in "'hich it " ·as m aue b,· the Llcl'is ion­

making buu\· except, o f course, "·hen thc deci sion ralls 1\'ithin th e

\Ve unesbury Llefinition o f unrcasonablent.:ss. !'his arco ru s \\' ith t he

,· asc of POIIlV/\ v Till KINGDOl\ IO FTONC;,\ (l· asc Nll.l ' 'Khl, in \\'hirh

:-. Ja nin Cj, consiuering a case o r Llis missa l of ;.1 p u blic sei"Yant by

cabinet in exer c ise o f a p o wer/ gi,·en unLle r cs t~u·oJe, similarly

i'l iiK iuueLI this was subject to judicia l rt.:, ·ic\\' ." (my t.: mrhasis. l

It is 11 u t contcnLieJ by the Plaintifr th at thi s is a r asc () 11 " 'vVeu nesbur y

unreasonabl en ess" . Ili s ca se is that in the <.tb scnre () f a dear ;,t ll cga ti o n an u an

o pportunity to answer, the s t a tuto r y p owers inulkcu by the f\ li nister of Police

o~ght be re,·ie\\'ed a nLI the requirement to res ign irnposeu upo n him Jcc lareu to

be a denia l or principles of natu ral jus tice. The rrnwn submi tteu Lluring the

hearing tha t the Plai ntiff' was in breach of rule 1{/ at the material time anLI was

Lold why anu how. The witness Ucpi says that th t.: l\ linis te r tolu th e Plaintiff o f

the complaints against him in the presence o r Ucpi.

Th e l'laintill has proveJ tha t he rcs igneu. li e re~ign t.:d up1>11 receipt a nd

as a consequen ce or th e le tter or the lv linister Jated ~ February I t)l) I .

Til e t·es ig na tion o f the Plainti!T is not cu t: lrau inc t..l by th e Del'enJants ,

rather Llo the DefenJants rely upo n the fac t o r the Plaintiff's res ignation as his

voluntary ac t which would preclude him fro n1 juLlicia l rev iew. That s ubmission

bears scrutiny.

11 .

' '

\ r•ltllltar:.· ~ll'i prcxl udin g him 11·:>111 iu Ji, ·!,il r -.: ·.ic· ... i .... 1111t 11 1 tn:· •>p1 11 1o n -;o

'l i111 pll: a !ll ~lll~r a~; the Dcfe nJant:; \\r>uiti ha \ cit. In i',tct •> 11 .tn : re~tJ in g '.>1 the

lettl.T c>l --! rebru;.~ry, the Plaintiil '.\' ;.IS prcsent eJ 1\ ith ll tlbSon'<; rlwire. I he

C>ptiCJn presenl e tl as to the mann e r CJr hi s tal-.in g hi s k a, ·e \\·nu ld •> nl : make his

le;t\' illg less unc ·nrnrorlable. It ,,.l)u!J nul altt:r tile l~tt 1 •>f' his w•i1H.;.

I he dec is inn i 11 R!l)(; l: ' IL\LD\VI N II' )h-i- I \L -!I l d t:ci tleJ among ~ >l h e r til ing s

th;.~t ,t p<n' er 1\'hi c h ;.~ llects rights must be c\:e!·c i<>e J j uJkia ll:. l.ortl llnds() n

matle the point at UO:-

"The l·ases seem to me to shu,,· thi.lt pt:r~;c ms <Kl ing in ~~ ,·ap <.tcity

1\'hich is not Oil the race or it juJirial hut rather e\:el'U li\·e 1>r

atlministrative ha\·e been heltl by :he ,·I> Llr ·l'> t() he s u bjec t lc> the

principles t>f natural j u stice."

l'he Plaintifr however arkn owlcdgctl antl res p()nded t11 t h e reprimanJ

\\'arning antl o!Ter o r opti o n s by specifically ,tn·cpting ti le !'ir·st . namel y tn

accept the ad\'ire or the ~ linist er o r t>oiire <.lllJ n : l'c>rm.

It is clear from the evit.lcnce that the i\ linister Jecit.let.l by --! h: bruar: · l t)<J 1

th;1t he 1\'0ult.l give effect to the Plaintiff's Jismissal o n the grounus chargct.l

agains t the Plaintiff in july at a Lime when he hat.! t.lecl inet.l o ffer u f a t ribuna l

hearing for precisely the matters ror w hic h he hat.! been \\'arne t.l in july 1990.

the ~linistcr says so much in exhi bit "t>Y" . the letter Ja tet.l --! reb ruary l <Jt) 1.

I am unable to conclut.le t hat I rum the t'act s as I ha,·e rount.l them tu be

there has been a denial of n a tural justice o r any basis a J\·a ncct.l by t he Plain till

in this rev ie\\' requiring this co urt to interrerc in t he atlntini strat in~ process

about \\·hich the Plaintiff h as com p lained.

The Plaintiff's claims are Jismissed.

.JUDGE

12