Oppostion takes govt to court THE Opposition has filed a Supreme Court application last Friday to determine the Constitutionality of the “extended 30 months grace period”. The instruments will be effected and likely served on the Prime Minister and National Executive Council today or this week. Opposition Leader Belden Namah announced this yesterday at Parliament House. He was accompanied by his deputy and MP for Wau-Bulolo, Sam Basil and lawyer Loani Henao. Mr Namah and Mr Henao explained that they filed a very serious application relating to two major provisions, Section 18 (1) of the Constitution and Section 145, which provides for a motion of no confidence and or Section 124 of the Constitution which deals with the Sitting of Parliament. “We are challenging the 30 months and 18 months that was initially increased from six months,” Mr Namah said. “The prime minister has built a fence around himself and come up with this to give security for five years on him.” The then Somare government voted in parliament in 1991 to extend the grace period from six months to 18 months. Early this year, the O’Neill-Dion government further extended the grace period to 30 months after passing the amendment to the Constitution, effectively giving a government extended 30 months grace period and preventing motions of no confidence being moved against it. Mr Namah said this is now before the Supreme Court after the case was filed last Friday. “It is absolutely necessary that the highest court, the Supreme Court, must be asked to interpret and tell the people of this nation whether the amendments are in line with the Constitution,” Mr Henao said. “This is an opportunity for the 7 million people of PNG to know whether this is right,” he said. This is a case similar to that of the Organic Law on Integrity of Political Parties and Candidates (OLIPAC), where Sir Mekere Morauta was prime minister and Sir Michael Somare was the Opposition Leader. When he was the prime minister Sir Mekere sought to ensure stability through the organic law, which set limitations on the composition of political parties and rules relating to no-confidence votes and political defections. But Sir Michael took the matter to court, arguing that it was unconstitutional and that only a handful had the power to manipulate and make a decision. The Supreme Court ruled in favour of the OLIPAC application and some sections of that law were declared unconstitutional by the PNG Supreme Court in 2010. This, Mr Henao said, was similar and that is why he was filing to challenge the matter in the High Court.
Posted on: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 03:08:52 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015