I come to all of you today to propose an Amendment to the Election & Judicial Acts to bar Justices from being able to participate in our elections. All of us recognize the vital role that the judiciary plays in ensuring fairness, and the rule of law within our region. Justices have been serving as both a justice and or Delegate and Prime Minister for many of the past terms. But there also comes a fear of Justices violating the Criminal Code while serving in both positions. Especially for being criminally liable by doing their own bidding or getting one of their ministers to do it for them or the crime of corruption for their personal gain. I also personally think itâs not right for a Justice to be Prime Minister when they are the experts of South Pacifician Law and decide court cases. While I am not accusing Justices being in both positions at once of doing this in the past. However, it is essential that the South Pacific has a separation of powers. These separations of powers ensure the democratic process of the South Pacific. I understand that there are also citizens of the region. But being heads of two branches of government isnât right. For a region to be stronger, they need both an independent Executive and Judicial Branch where there are separate people in both the Executive and Judicial branches. If there are the same people then checks and balances may not be placed in. This is all for the independence of the judicial and executive branches that must be safeguarded from any potential conflicts of interest that could arise from justices that may seek political office and win. For these reasons I propose an amendment as stated on top to the Elections & Judicial Act to restrict Justices from running in elections. This amendment seeks to ensure that justices remain neutral and independent from another public office such as Prime Minister and Delegate of the South Pacific. Youâll see my proposals below.
Elections Act
3. Office of the Delegate
(2) On the 15th of January and July, the citizens will convene for the first round of Delegate Elections.
Any eligible citizen wishing to run for Delegate may declare their candidacy, and the citizens will debate the merits of their platform. Any player who has been elected to the office of Delegate in both of the immediately preceding regularly scheduled elections or who has been banned from World Assembly membership will be considered ineligible and any candidate who is later discovered to be banned from World Assembly membership will be immediately disqualified. Citizens wishing to run for Delegate must have their member nation of the World Assembly residing in the South Pacific before they declare their candidacy. 2.The Chief Justice and all Associate Justices cannot run for Delegate while serving as a Justice. 3. The campaign and debate period will last four days, after which the citizens will vote for four days. 4. This round of voting for Delegate will use Approval Voting to determine two winners as candidates in the second round. If candidates tie for being a winner, all of those tied candidates shall be considered winners.
âŚâŚ.
4. Office of the Prime Minister
(1) On the 15th of January, April, July, and October, the citizens will convene to elect the Prime Minister.
Any eligible citizen wishing to run for Prime Minister may declare their candidacy, and the citizens will debate the merits of their platform, provided they were not elected Prime Minister in each of the immediately preceding four regularly scheduled elections. 2. The Chief and all Associate Justices cannot run for Prime Minister while serving as a Justice. 3. The campaign and debate period will last four days, after which the citizens will vote for four days. 4. The election will be conducted using Instant-Runoff Voting. 5. The winner of the election will be declared the Prime Minister-elect by the Election Commissioner.
Judicial Act
2. Judicial Conduct and Requirements
(1) Justices of the High Court shall:
rule upon what is written in law, and not be influenced by prejudice based on personal bias, corruption by undue influence, or discord;
consider the impact of Court rulings carefully to ensure that, whenever possible, no individual is empowered to exploit rulings of the Court;
maintain good communication with fellow Justices as well as the broader community; and 4. Be ineligible to seek public office that conflicts with judicial duties; and 5. be reasonably inquisitorial.
Apologies if this post is long and if I didnât format it correctly.
I donât buy this argument. People can violate the Criminal Code at any time even if they hold no elected or appointed office.
The Chief Justice is already barred from serving as Delegate or Prime Minister so your amendment really is about Associate Justices having similar restrictions. I do wonder why you choose to place your restrictions there rather than adding them to the section on Separation of Powers.
â
Ultimately I donât think youâve made a compelling case for why this is needed beyond abstract concepts on separation of powers and corruption that arenât necessarily grounded on the regional reality or its needs. I know that personally Iâm not particularly moved by the âconceptâ of separation of powers as an abstract construct as it applies to Associate Justices. Iâd want to know why it should be applied to them at the expense of their electoral participation elsewhere when the Court isnât facing cases 24/7. Youâd be removing people from electoral participation without a truly compelling case.
I assumed you wouldnât like this idea for various reasons. However, I donât think it matters if they can violate the criminal code even without an office when quite frankly. At least on I can tell on these forums wise there was a handful of cases of people in office and concerns with abusing their power. Where there is none for just a citizen. This has happened recently with Belschaft (who currently is sitting as an Associate justice).
Under the Separation of Powers article in the charter which you mentioned reads this as one of itâs bullets:
I interpret it this way: Since, the Prime Minister, Delegate, and Justices all codified in the constitution they are all offices of the coalition. Meaning while the Associate Justices serve out their time as justices they cannot serve in another office of the coalition which is: Delegate, and Prime Minister. Which means they cannot run for another office and this amendment backs that interpretation up.
Yes, however the recalls or retention votes whichever process comes first doesnât always work as they be still retained or kept in their position even if they did truly break the criminal code.
as I keep using him as an example
Also want to apologize in advance to Belschaft as I keep using him as a example.
Luckily, the section before your quoted leaves the guesswork and alternate interpretation out of what the Offices of the Coalition areâŚ
That being said, since I recently also voted to enact term limits for my own currently held position, I feel like I can say that I am not opposed to this discussion, but there is likely a better way to legislate it.
Also,
Which is the Assemblyâs right to do. There have been countless instances over the years where the Assembly preempts, nullifies, or otherwise acts independently of the Court.
We can have a conversation about enforcing a separation of powers for Associate Justices too (even if I would not be a big fan) but Iâm baffled by the reasons stated for this change. Was there any particular incident(s) that prompted this?
Proof? The case leveled against him has nothing to do with an abuse of his power as Associate Justice.
What is so baffling to you about separation of powers, and effectively protecting the Criminal Code? (Not trying to sound rude saying this).
It actually does because by Belschaft breaking the criminal code even though as a citizen. By being in a job such as Associate Justice which he is in. He is technically abusing his power in his job at the same time of breaking the criminal code. Whatever the outcome is (meaning whatever he broke) is him still abusing his power at the same time because of him going out of his way and breaking the criminal code. Summary is: He is informally abusing his power even if it doesnât directly relate to his job.
Iâll acknowledge that, as a purely theoretical matter, I am probably more predisposed to an amendment along these lines than most. But as a practical matter, Iâm quite skeptical. I will also reiterate my views from the recent discussion that Pronoun referenced:
I think Disney is trying to say that breaking the criminal code while in office is an abuse of power even if your job and power had absolutely nothing to do with the crime. At least thatâs my understanding of what heâs trying to say. A number of those sentences are not grammatically correct in a very major way.
No, I was using a hypothetical âyouâ, not referring to any specific person.
Disney was referring to Belschaft in his post (who did not commit abuse of power)
Other thing I will add is that Informal Abuse of Power is a thing.
Definition here: the misuse of power that isnât explicitly defined in laws or regulations, but rather stems from a personâs social influence, reputation, or other personal strengths. This type of abuse can manifest in various ways, including manipulation, coercion, intimidation, bullying, and exploitation.