Today (Tuesday), the prosecution is appearing before the CoA seeking to send the former Permanent Secretary to the President (PSP) to jail to serve the seven-year sentence that was imposed on him by the apex court. In the appeal, the AG and DPP explained that the High Court has no jurisdiction to interfere with the CoA's decision. "The High Court doesn't have jurisdiction to review and set aside the decision of the CoA. Its rescission jurisdiction over the exercise of CoA's discretion ought to be invoked exceptionally," said the State.
The appeal is against a judgment of the High Court issued on January 3, 2025, which ultimately released Morupisi from jail following his challenge of the jail sentence he was given by CoA. Morupisi based his review application on the grounds that the CoA violated his rights by playing to the Executive as he felt the decision might have been influenced by the higher powers. Now the State in its attempt to dispute Morupisi's claim, has argued that there was no basis on any standard for reviewing and setting aside the decision of the CoA.
Prosecutors pointed out that the appeal represents a serious threat to the core values of the judicial system and the integrity of the appeals process. "The High Court's unprecedented intervention has rocked the very foundation of our judiciary. As the ultimate protector of these values, this court must step in to restore order and stability. "The trust the public has in the judiciary is at stake necessitating a quick and decisive resolution to the matter," the prosecution said. The AG, DPP argued that in terms of Section 18 of the Constitution, which Morupisi cited for the review application, it confers alternative powers of review in terms of very wide powers granted to the court under that section. However, they pointed out that but the section doesn't entitle the High Court to exercise supervisory jurisdiction over the CoA. The State explained that the very Constitution that the High Court places reliance on to set aside the CoA decision recognises that there is a hierarchy of courts with the CoA at the apex and the High Court beneath. "The High Court failed to find that once the CoA has adjudicated on Morupisi's case, it ceased to be open to the High Court to interfere with any judgment pronounced by it whether under Section 18 or any other law, in any manner which would amount in substance, even if not in form, to review a decision of the CoA," AG and DPP pointed out.
They also stated that there has to be a finality in criminal proceedings and this is reached in the normal course upon a final determination by the High Court or in the event of the appeal by the CoA, save to say in very exceptional cases. The prosecution argued that the High Court hadn't demonstrated any exceptional circumstances warranting the review of the CoA decision. In the end, the State emphasised that in the event the court finds that there was merit in Morupisi's review application, then it ought to have been brought before the CoA. "We conclude by asking that the appeal succeed with costs."
