High court sets precedents, say AG, attorney

The immediate response to the Navajo Nation Supreme Court decisions Friday, May 28, from a couple of attorneys is that several precedents were set.

Both Attorney General Louis Denetsosie and former Navajo Nation judicial branch solicitor James Zion in separate interviews said that the decisions clearly separate the executive and legislative branches.

The Supreme Court, in upholding the lower court's decision that the council illegally placed President Joe Shirley Jr. on leave, noted, "The crisis the Navajo Nation government is presently experiencing gives us cause to be concerned that the principles of separation of powers may not be properly respected if the council seeks to amend the (Sovereign Immunity) Act to address internal litigation.

"Under our system of checks and balances, the various branches must not be expected to be the judges of their own powers," they explained.

The justices further noted that the council's attempt to limit the use of Diné Fundamental Law to the Peacemaker Courts was done because of recent court decisions that were negative to the council's interests.

"The council may not encroach upon the judicial branch," the decision stated.

Denetsosie and Zion said that another important president set by the high court was the establishment of the will of people in their government.

The justices, in upholding the lower court's dismissal of Tim Nelson's complaint against the Dec. 15, 2009, election to reduce the council's membership, stated that the council had recognized that Diné fundamental law "provides guidance on the subject of leadership and the manner in which traditional law has established the people's right and freedom to choose their leader."

They reminded the council that in their Title 2 amendments that they promised to "stabilize Navajo Nation government in the face of corruption and chartered a course for further reform and enhancements.

"The council recognized that the power over the structure of the Navajo government 'is ultimately in the hands of the people and it will look to the people to guide it,'" the justices said.

They further noted that in 2002, the people, through the Government Reform Development Project, proposed amendments to Title 2 that stated "all powers not authorized to the Navajo Nation Council by Title 2 are reserved to the people."

But the council ignored the people, the justices said.

"We have said that Title Two is the Navajo Nation organic law," the Supreme Court said. "Statutes that conflict with the promises made in connection with Title Two cannot stand. Word are sacred, and the Navajo people have the right to keep the Navajo Nation Council to the whole of its words, not simply a portion thereof."

Back to top ^ Back to top ^