Invoking the Melanesian Way in Resolving Conflict between the Executive and Judiciary in Papua New Guinea: The Rooney and Namah Cases

Abstract

On 11 September 1979, a majority of four out of five of the all-foreign, all-male bench of judges of the Papua New Guinea Supreme Court handed down their ruling and sentencing in Public Prosecutor v Rooney (No 2) (the Rooney case). Rooney was found guilty of three counts of criminal contempt and sentenced to eight months jail with light labour. Indeed, confirming Narokobi’s feelings expressed above, one of the judges noted that for her contempt, ‘[Nahau Rooney] must now be visited with condign punishment as retribution for herself and a deterrent for future would-be offenders’ (Saldanha in Public Prosecutor v Rooney (No 2)). The bench of all-foreign judges rejected Minister for Justice Nahau Rooney’s junior counsel’s attempt to invoke the Melanesian way or a customary approach to express her remorse in her role leading to the conflict between the executive and judiciary that led to the case. Rooney spent one night in jail and was released on licence on 12 September 1979 by the prime minister, Michael Somare. The Rooney contempt case (Public Prosecutor v Rooney (No 1); Public Prosecutor v Rooney (No 2)) is a landmark case in executive and judiciary relations in Papua New Guinea (PNG). It is often cited to highlight a range of themes such as threats from the executive to judicial independence, the role of judicial reviews of legislative or executive policy decisions, or the role of foreign judges (see for discussion, Dziedzic 2021; Kama 2024; Logan 2017; Nonggorr 1992).