Gets very problematic right about there regarding the true "separation of powers" given the glaring conflict of interest of those concerned.
Consider this concerning Greenland and the Self-Government Act of 21st June 2009 :
"The Self-Government Act provides for the Self- Government authorities to assume a number of new fields of responsibility, such as administration of justice, including the establishment of courts of law" [from (link)
Danish Prime Minister's Office Website]So who is this Minister of Justice of the Greenland Self-Government authority who holds ultimate authority over the Greenland courts
(copied from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naalakkersuisut ]:Minister for Housing, Infrastructure, Minerals, Justice and Gender Equality7 August 2021Incumbent Inuit AtaqatigiitFunny thing that ............. this same Naaja H.Nathanielsen who is currently Minister of Justice in
Greenland also happens to be simultaneously Greenland's Minister of Minerals, d'you notice that? So:
"Nemo debet esse judex in propria causa" ???????The key aspects of this principle being:- It aims to prevent conflicts of interest and ensure fairness in legal proceedings. If someone has a personal stake in a case, they cannot objectively evaluate the matter.
- It applies to any adjudicatory body or individual making binding decisions that affect rights or interests of others. This includes courts, tribunals, arbitrators, administrative agencies, etc.
- The rule requires that the decision-maker is disinterested and independent regarding the issues and parties involved.
- Even the appearance of bias should be avoided.If a conflict of interest exists, the decision-maker must withdraw from the case. The parties involved are also entitled to object to a biased adjudicator under this rule.
But hang on a bit there, mate, wasn't this the very same Naaja H.Nathanielsen who previously stated that she would do all in her power to stop ETM's mining project? Who oversaw the rejection out of hand of ETM's exploitation permit without even bothering to go through the whole process as defined in the relevant legislation? Despite ETM (or Greenland Minerals as it was known at that time) having done all the work required and stipulated in the conditions of their original contract with the legal entity called the Government of Greenland? Works that once completed were stated in that legislation to automatically qualify the company for an exploitation permit under the law as it stood at the time of signing?
This same GoG being a legal entity having the same attribute of
"perpetual succession" as
ETM/Greenland Minerals before the law ---- ie.the party in power changes, but the legal entity remains the same and as such bound by the terms of the contracts they signed, even though the party in power ---- the "Board of Directors" of "Greenland Inc." if you will ---- may have been different at the time of the signing those contracts?
So tell me how could any
reasonable person in these circumstances have any confidence that legal proceedings regarding this matter would be fair and without bias if held before the courts of Greenland which are answerable to the main protagonist in this same matter?
Even the appearance of bias should be avoided, so obviously the body judging this case should .... must even ..... be other than the High Court of Greenland.
So give us a break there huh mate!?!?!?!
(20min delay)