All are to blame in current impasse

AFTER reading through the 233-page judgment of the Supreme Court reference that invalidated the election of Peter O’Neill and noting from the current standoff between the two opposing regimes, I make the following comments and observation for the public’s consumption.
There was no vacancy in the PM’s seat before the election of Peter O’Neill as PM because there was an acting Prime Minister in Sam Abal.
Abal as acting PM was not appointed by the parliament through the normal constitutional process.
Because he was not appointed by parliament, he was duty-bound as the temporary head of the NEC to inform parliament (the legislature) about the Grand Chief’s health status as parliament was legally entitled to know.
The reasonable time for NEC to inform parliament was three months. However, what is reasonable time is measured against all the prevailing circumstances in a particular case.
In this case, what is reasonable time was “out of touch” because the constitutional process to determine the health status of the PM was not put into motion by the NEC and even if it did, it was done at a snail’s pace and more than 90% of the tasks as required by law were yet to be done. Thus, there was obvious uncertainty and a sense of resentment among MPs.
Being frustrated by the delay, Aug 2 was the day when parliament moved and removed Grand Chief as the PM.
That removal was declared unconstitutional by the court not only because there was no vacancy of the PM office but also because O’Neill was elected on the same day when vacancy declaration was made contrary to established constitutional principle in the Haiveta v Wingti case.
Thus, his election as PM was voidable and as expected, the East Sepik provincial government filed the Supreme Court reference and succeeded.
Based on the above reasons, O’Neill’s election was declared unconstitutional. Nevertheless, the O’Neill regime realised the danger and acted swiftly to rectify the situation and, among others, amended the Prime Minister & NEC Act to legitimatise the Aug 2 move.
These moves are seen by many to have all but corrected the mess created.
The rectification exercise was only aimed at disqualifying Sir Michael, firstly, as an MP and later as an PM in terms of age.
The O’Neill regime has never or failed to rectify or legitimise the “next day” definition of Aug 2 and Dec 12. In both instances, O’Neill is caught. No problem if he was elected either on Aug 3 or Dec 13.
This being the case, why should the Grand Chief knowingly say that the O’Neill-Namah regime is legitimate? Surely the Grand Chief has a point and all the learned lawyers participated in this case in one way or another know for sure.
Its only the time that is against the Grand Chief to try it out again at the high court of the land. Before the Grand Chief left for Singapore, he left the ship with an incompetent captain. Now the Chief is feeling the pain for his unwise decision.
 
Kaekin Malis Mining
Waigani