MINISTERIAL POWER OR JUDICIAL DEFIANCE? WHY THE LANDS MINISTER CANNOT BE CRIMINALLY CHARGED FOR TITLE REISSUANCE

Post courier Media Release

The Minister for Lands, Hon. John Rosso, holds discretionary authority under Section 72 of the Lands Act 1996 to deal with State land, including the granting, variation, or cancellation of leases. This discretion, while not absolute, is legally protected unless exercised in bad faith, for corrupt purposes, or in direct defiance of a binding court order. In the absence of such evidence, the mere act of altering or reissuing a title however controversial does not automatically constitute a criminal offence.

To sustain any criminal charge under the Criminal Code Act 1974 or the Leadership Code, there must be clear evidence of mens rea, or guilty intent. If the Minister acted on departmental advice, misunderstood the legal status of the land, or believed the lease was lawfully rectified, then the threshold for criminal liability is not met. Section 7 of the Criminal Code requires that an act be done intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly to constitute an offence. Administrative error or misjudgement, even if legally flawed, does not equate to criminal conduct.

Furthermore, unless the National Court explicitly issued an injunction or restraining order under Order 12 Rule 1 of the National Court Rules prohibiting further dealings with the land, the Minister may argue that his actions did not constitute contempt. A person is not guilty of contempt unless he knowingly disobeys a clear and binding order of the court. If the court merely quashed the original lease without issuing a continuing prohibition, the Minister may claim he acted within administrative bounds.

Under the Organic Law on the Duties and Responsibilities of Leadership, allegations against a leader must first be referred to the Ombudsman Commission. The Commission then investigates and determines whether to refer the matter to the Public Prosecutor. No person shall be charged with misconduct in office unless the Ombudsman Commission has made a referral. Thus, even if impropriety is suspected, criminal charges cannot be laid without procedural compliance.

The Minister is also presumed to act in good faith and within the scope of his official duties unless proven otherwise. This presumption is reinforced by Section 16 of the Claims By and Against the State Act 1996, which protects officers acting in their official capacity from personal liability unless malice or fraud is shown.

This defence does not absolve the Minister of political or ethical scrutiny. However, it establishes that criminal liability requires a higher threshold, one that must be met with clear evidence of intent, breach of court orders, or corrupt conduct. In the absence of such evidence, calls for prosecution may be premature, politically motivated, or legally unsustainable.

Leadership Code Requires Referral, Not Immediate Charges