AN AUSTRALIAN couple who have been seeking justice in the Solomon Islands for the past 14 years say they are “comforted” by an email they received from the Attorney General (AG) John Muria Jnr this week.
Mr. Muria Jnr has written to Mr. and Mrs. Fred and Gloria Olsson, acknowledging the receipt of a copy of a formal complaint the couple has made against John Sullivan QC.
The complaint, made in the form of a written submission, was sent to the President of the Solomon Islands Bar Association (SIBA). Among other things, the submission petitioned the Bar Association to strike-off Mr. Sullivan, QC from the list of registered lawyers who are allowed to practice here.
The submission is comprehensive and carries a plethora of issues, including accusations of lies, breaches of court rules, and many others, as grounds for striking off the Queen’s Counsel from practicing in Solomon Islands.
The Olssons are also expected to file a similar submission to the Australian Bar Association as they turn up the heat on the judiciary in the Solomon Islands for allegedly mishandling their case.
They sent a copy to the Attorney General in his capacity as Chair of SIBA’s Disciplinary Committee.
In an email dated 3rd March 2021, Attorney General Muria Jnr thanked the Olssons for their submission, acknowledging he has received it.
The Attorney General also outlined the process in dealing with such complaints.
“I have forwarded your complaint to the Solomon Islands Bar Association. I believe the process now is that the Bar Association will meet on the referral and decide on referring the matter to the Chief Justice.
‘Upon receipt by the Chief Justice, the Chief Justice will make recommendations and forward the matter to the Disciplinary Committee. The Secretary to the Solomon Islands Bar Association is copied here as well and should be able to assist you and guide you further.
“The Attorney-General is Chairman of the Disciplinary Committee and whose role comes into play at a later stage. As such, I should not make comments at this stage but only refer your complaint to the rightful body,” the Attorney General said.
The Olssons have thanked the Attorney General, saying, “Thank you so much for your response. It is much appreciated and gives us comfort.”
The response by the Attorney General is certain to shift the focus to both the Chief Justice and SIBA’s Disciplinary Committee in determining the outcome of the Olssons’ complaint against John Sullivan QC.
Of particular interest is whether Mr. Sullivan QC would be held accountable in the same way the Disciplinary Committee had dealt with the case involving local lawyer, Charles Ashley, a decade or so ago.
In their correspondence the Olssons told the Attorney General; “We first emailed a formal complaint to you on 19 February 2021 about the conduct of John Sullivan QC for investigation. Would you kindly email acknowledgment of receipt of a formal complaint and this additional information to add to the complaints?
“Would you also advise us the names of the members of the Executive Committee of the Bar Association and their contact addresses? Any member who has a conflict of interest must step aside from the investigation.
“We would appreciate if you would also outline the process for investigation from here, including being kept informed of the progress of the investigation as required.
“We note the Law Council of Australia report into “Review of Legal Profession Regulations in the Solomon Islands” in 2011 indicated support and assistance to SI Bar Association by twinned organizations in Australia. We believe this would be appropriate to ensure an impartial and independent investigation into this complaint against a life member of the SI Bar Association,” the Olssons said.
“Please find attached the recent documents filed with the court. These add to the complaint to the Bar Association as they would indicate criminal deceit to benefit Pamela Kimberly and John Sullivan and cause harm to our interests as Enforcement Creditors. This causes us exceptional distress.
“This complaint is of a very serious nature and a formal complaint has also been lodged with the (Royal Solomon Islands Police Force (RSIPF) for investigation of alleged criminal activity.
“The legal execution of the ‘seize and sell’ enforcement order has been obstructed by the Respondent, legal counsel, and the court. Our rights to enforcement against the Respondent, upheld by the Court of Appeal must be respected. We refer you to your media release in 2019 that states “Enforcement of the judgment is what clients want to see.”
“The Bar Association must give confidence to the community by communicating with us to address this complaint. It must be clear that there is compliance with the Code of Behaviour for lawyers and that bad behaviour will have serious consequences. Complaints must be addressed without fear or favour and there should be no discrimination according to the status of the lawyer.
“The Bar Association should take a serious interest in any complaint from fair-minded, reasonable by-standers, criticism of the judiciary is healthy when it is evident decisions made are not in accordance with legislation, the evidence or jurisdiction.
“When members of the community lose faith in the judicial system, there is a problem. The Bar Association should listen with an open mind and question judicial decisions that reflect serious error, bias, or perceived incompetence and corruption.
“The independence, impartiality, and integrity of the judiciary must be held to account. The Bar Association must not blindly promote the notion that the judiciary must not be questioned – this sends a message to the public that the Bar Association will hide, facilitate and condone elements of corruption within the court system. The Bar Association should not use the media to defame those who have legitimate concerns which should be investigated at the earliest opportunity,” the Olssons said.
Mr. and Mrs. Olsson are pursuing an enforcement order granted initially by the High Court and later upheld by the Court of Appeal – the highest court in Solomon Islands – over breach of employment contracts.
Among other things, the Enforcement Order ruled that the Sheriff of the High Court be authorised to seize and sell properties owned by Pamela Kimberly.
The Sheriff however could not proceed with the seizure and sale of the properties because of an 11-hour questionable intervention by John Sullivan QC, a one-time business partner of Ms Kimberly.
Judge John Keniapisia knowingly accepted the last-minute application by Mr. Sullivan QC and granted a stay on the execution of the Court of Appeal Enforcement Order, knowing that the matter has been decided by the Court of Appeal.
The over-arching question is that of jurisdiction – does the High Court have jurisdiction to rehear a matter that has been decided by the Court of Appeal?
It is the question the Olssons have repeatedly raised to no avail.
By Alfred Sasako
Newsroom, Honiara
