ISSUE: Did the Speaker as interim President exercise appropriately powers to grant pardons?

Perhaps my following publication can be noted and also transmitted to the President of Vanuatu, as after
all we wouldnt like to have a principle that a person found guilty of a crime could pardon himself.
https://vanuatudaily.wordpress.com/2015/10/13/vanuatu-daily-news-digest-13-october-2015-tiv-reports-the-president/

1.

G. H. Schorel-Hlavka (@INSPECTORRIKATI) says: October 13, 2015 at 4:19 pm

As a CONSTITUTIONALIST (Australia) I view that the constitution of Vanuatu does give the powers to the
Speaker when exercising the position of the president to provide for pardons. As such had the speaker exercised this
right to pardoning his co-convicted Members of Parliament it would have in my view been acceptable? However, by
pardoning himself the Speaker when exercising Presidential powers clearly abused/misused his position and by this
the pardons granted to the co-convicted must be deemed also unconstitutional.
The term pardon is one that means that one pardons another person, and not one self. As such the speaker as stand
in as president had no constitutional powers to pardon himself. It is by pardoning himself he effectively invalidated
the pardons he gave to his fellow convicted Members of Parliament and as such I view all the pardons are null and
void. In that regard I view the Speaker (acting as president) acted in defiance of the constitution and should be held
legally accountable for misuse of the Office of the President.
In my view the President should exercise his powers to revoke the 14 pardons as having been combined an abuse of
power.
QUOTE
38. The President of the Republic may pardon, commute or reduce a sentence imposed on a person convicted of an offence. Parliament may
provide for a committee to advise the President in the exercise of this function.

END QUOTE
While the committee may advise the President then clearly this includes that the President may consider the advice
given by such committee.
While the President may provide a pardon without advice of the committee, nevertheless the principle for the
President to consider if a pardon should be granted cannot be ignored. On that basis any conduct by the Speaker
acting as President to provide a pardon to himself fails to include an impartial consideration.
QUOTE
(2) Protection of the law shall include the following(a) everyone charged with an offence shall have a fair hearing, within a reasonable time, by an independent and impartial court and be afforded a
lawyer if it is a serious offence;

END QUOTE
The constitution clearly has the legal principle that a court shall be independent and impartial and in my view this
too can be held applicable to the President or any person acting as President that this consideration for a pardon
shall be independent and impartial.
See also my blog at http://www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
G. H. Schorel-Hlavka (@INSPECTORRIKATI) says: October 13, 2015 at 4:41 pm
Section 36 of the Vanuatu constitution clearly would be worthless if the President or a person acting as a President
could at anytime grand himself a pardon, within the 2 weeks of notification to be provided. Hence, s36 implies that
the President, and so anyone acting in the capacity of President, cannot grand himself a pardon.
QUOTE
TERM OF OFFICE AND REMOVAL OF PRESIDENT 36. (1) The term of office of the President of the Republic shall be 5 years. (2) The
President of the Republic may be removed from office, only for gross misconduct or incapacity, by the electoral college provided for in Article 34
on a motion introduced by at least one-third of the members of the college and passed by at least two-thirds of its members, when at least threefourths of its members, including at least three-fourths of the Chairmen of the Local Government Councils, are present. (3) At least 2 weeks
notice of the motion provided for in subarticle (2) shall he given to the Speaker. (4) If there is no quorum at the first sitting as provided in
subarticle (2), the electoral college may meet and vote on the motion provided for in subarticle (2) a week later even if there is only a quorum of
two-thirds of the members of the college.

END QUOTE
For this I view that the Pardons purportedly granted by the speaker acting as President cannot be upheld in law and
p1
11-10-2015
G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati

are null and void.

The following authority also may be considered to apply as much to a pardon as legislation;
.
Uniform Tax \case, 1942 (65CLR 373 at 408) 23-7-1942
QUOTE
Common expressions such as: The Courts have declared a statute invalid, says Chief Justice Latham, sometimes lead to misunderstanding. A
pretended law made in excess of power is not and never has been a law at all. Anybody in the country is entitled to disregard it. Naturally, he will
feel safer if he has a decision of a court in his favor, but such a decision is not an element, which produces invalidity in any law. The law is not
valid until a court pronounces against it and thereafter invalid. If it is beyond power it is invalid ab initio.

END QUOTE
Also the bias by the Speaker acting as President may be considered in the following quotation as applicable to a
judge.
The book Law Made Simple by Colin F. Padfield, LL.B.,D.P.A.(Lond.) on page 55:
QUOTE
The Rule against Bias. A true judicial decision can be reached only if the judge himself is impartial. This is an obvious requirement in a court of
law or a tribunal. In R. v Rand (1866) it was held that a judge is disqualified where (i) he has a direct pecuniary interest, however small, in the
subject-matter in dispute; or (ii) there is real likelihood that the judge would have a bias in favour of one of the parties.
For example, if a judge is related to, or is a friend of, one of the parties to a dispute there would be real likelihood of bias. It is immaterial whether
a judicial decision was in fact biased, for as was said by Lord Chief Justice Heward in R. v Sussex Justices, ex parte McCarthy (1924): Justice
should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done.

QUOTE

This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to state all issues/details.

Awaiting your response,

G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Gerrit)

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL

(Our name is our motto!)

p2
11-10-2015
G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati