[1] Thus the Supreme Court is empowered to deliver an advisory opinion, albeit only upon questions referred to it by Cabinet.
[6] This appellate jurisdiction concluded on 12 March 2018 after the Government of Nauru unilaterally ended the arrangement,[7][8][9] which had previously been advocated by the Australian Law Reform Commission[10]) and others as sitting awkwardly with the High Court of Australia's other responsibilities.
[7][11] In a speech to parliament on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of Nauru's independence, President Baron Waqa stated: "Severance of ties to Australia's highest court is a logical step towards full nationhood and an expression of confidence in Nauru's ability to determine its own destiny.
[12] The termination of the agreement required 90 days notice, which Nauru gave on 12 December 2017, but did not become known until after the Supreme Court had reheard a case relating to a 2015 protest outside the Nauruan parliament that was remitted to it "for hearing according to law" by the High Court[13] after quashing the original decision.
[14] However, due to the coronavirus pandemic, the judicial positions of the Court of Appeal were not filled till mid-2022 when the first hearings began.
In a very brief ruling, Chief Justice Thompson struck out the appeal, on the grounds that "this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain appeals from the Nauru Lands Committee's determinations in respect of personalty", as such jurisdiction was not specifically provided by the Nauru Lands Committee Ordinance 1956.
Jeremiah argued this was a violation of article 3 of the Constitution, which provides that "every person in Nauru is entitled to the fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual".
Justice Crulci (2014–2017) and Resident Magistrate Emma Garo (2014-2016) were the first women to be appointed to the judiciary in Nauru.