[2406.HQ] Government Accountability in Sunshine Releases

High Court
1

Your honors,

I come to you today to submit a set of Legal Questions as per Article 4 of the Judicial Act (“JA”). As a current member of the South Pacific, I have standing to submit such a question in accordance with JA 4.2.

The Sunshine Act mandates regular releases of “significant discussions” within Cabinet 6 months after a term has completed. Unfortunately, the last Sunshine Act release from Cabinet appears to be from Prime Minister @EmC in August 2022, which released the discussions up until the end of the Term that started in November 2021. Now, in September 2024, that means that Cabinet has failed to provide Sunshine releases from the February 2022 term up until the February 2024 term inclusive, which means 9 terms in total.

My questions are:

  • Except recall and discontent, what mechanisms are available for the Assembly to demand the release of these discussions?
  • Are the Prime Ministers of those terms legally liable for a failure to release discussions?
  • If so, does the Court find probable cause that Purple Hyacinth, Professor Henn, Banexet, and Penguin are subject to that liability?
2
High Court of the South Pacific

Notice of Reception

Let this serve as notice that this petition has been received by the High Court and has been assigned the following identifying information:

Docket Number
2406.HQ

Reference Name
Government Accountability in Sunshine Releases

Request

  1. Except recall and discontent, what mechanisms are available for the Assembly to demand the release of these discussions?
  2. Are the Prime Ministers of those terms legally liable for a failure to release discussions?
  3. If so, does the Court find probable cause that Purple Hyacinth, Professor Henn, Banexet, and Penguin are subject to that liability?

Submission: 02 Sep 2024

3

The Court asks @Roavin if they would like to clarify their second question and provide further definition of their understanding of the term “legally liable”.

4

Your honors,

with “legally liable”, I mean that there is a penalty prescribed or prescribable by law for the failure to release as mandated by Sunshine Act 2.2. This could be, but not necessarily has to be, criminal liability as defined in the Criminal Code. Or to put it in other words, if dereliction of duty in this way carries any consequence except through recall and the ballot box.

5
HIGH COURT OF THE SOUTH PACIFIC
[2406.HQ] Government Accountability in Sunshine Releases

Whereas this Court has been asked to exercise the judicial power vested in it by the Charter of the South Pacific, it is resolved that:

  1. This case is not justiciable.

  2. The petitioner may request the Court to provide an account of the reasons that led to this determination no later than 2024-09-07T14:00:00Z.

Submission: 02 Sep 2024 | Determination: 03 Sep 2024
6

Your honors,

I would indeed like to request an account, however I am fully content with a 1-2 sentence answer and don’t want to unnecessarily burden the Court with providing a long form account.

7
HIGH COURT OF THE SOUTH PACIFIC
[2406.HQ] Government Accountability in Sunshine Releases

Chief Justice Kringle on behalf of the High Court.

Petitioner requested the Court to identify the mechanisms available for the Assembly to enforce the Sunshine Act and to determine the scope of legal liability in the event that the Prime Minister does not act consistent with said law.

Upon detailed review and discussion the Court has concluded that the questions presented to it do not seek to interpret an ambiguous provision of law or resolve a contradiction between conflicting laws; instead, the questions seek to have the Court perform functions that are not consistent with its legal mandate under the Charter of the South Pacific and the Judicial Act.

The first question asks about mechanisms available to the Assembly for the enforcement of the Sunshine Act. It is the sense of the Court that this is a question of a political nature whose answer rests with the Assembly itself and its individual members. To the extent that the Court could provide an answer it would merely restate the provisions of the Sunshine Act.

The second question asks about the legal liability of Prime Minister who fail to act consistent with the Sunshine Act. The Court sought clarification of this question, but upon receiving a response it has no choice but to conclude that “legal liability” is not an existing term within the region’s legal lexicon. The Court is an interpreter and arbiter laws, not a maker of them, therefore it cannot entertain questions whose effect would be to create such figures outside the established legislative process.

The third question stems from the second and comes close to constituting a trial without a crime as codified in the Criminal Code. Given that the second question is not justiciable and that the Court cannot hold trials for which no crime is given, the third question is similarly deemed not to be justiciable.

Submission: 02 Sep 2024 | Determination: 03 Sep 2024 | In-Chambers Opinion: 04 Sep 2024