Constitution remains supreme

THE aftermath of the mutinous actions last Thursday by retired colonel Yaura Sasa and a group of soldiers, which reportedly numbered up to 40, shows that the O’Neill-led government will have to weather some more storms in the run-up to the general election.
O’Neill was reportedly shaken by the events which came as a complete surprise to his six-month-old regime, and may well have stirred him to take action to calm a potentially volatile situation.
Could it be that Sasa’s actions will be seen ostensibly as a caveat for what may follow? The Ialibu-Pangia MP said on that same day his cabinet, because of the intimidatory act, would seriously consider bringing forward the general election from its scheduled June date.
Sasa, a relatively little-known high ranking officer in the PNG Defence Force who was retrenched nearly a decade ago, shot into the limelight with his daring – if not bizarre – and contumacious deed. There can be little doubt that he had help from – or at least the blessing of – the Somare faction since he was their appointee to head the country’s military. And one gets the feeling that the move by Sasa and his band of Somare loyalists was not necessarily carried out with outright success in mind but rather to send a message to the O’Neill camp. The message is that the Grand Chief still commands support from a good portion of the population.
And regardless of its size, the point remains that there are members of the country’s elite who believe that O’Neill’s claim to power is based on a flawed view of constitutional democracy.
With that in mind many educated and knowledgeable citizens will now see the O’Neill-Namah regime in a different light irrespective of its apparently good intentions. Two wrongs do not make a right – so the saying goes. But when you are dealing with human emotions, one cannot but refer to other equally imperfect groups to arbitrate a dispute.
This is essentially what happened in the events leading up to the decision of the five-man bench of the Supreme Court which ruled in favour of Somare on Dec 12 last year. The decision, we can say, was in keeping with the rule of law and the Constitution – in spite of a 3-2 majority recognising Somare as the legitimate head of government.
The Constitution is the basis for which the executive arms of government operate under the Westminster style of democracy. But it seems that the Constitution has taken a back seat under the O’Neill government. Amendments made by parliament since August have been in retrospect and have been done purely to serve the legislature’s mis-steps. Granted that the Grand Chief, a 40-year political veteran, for all intents and purposes, was out of the scene for several months due to major heart surgery and recovery. But his place and government was not an oppressive regime nor was it enacting laws that hindered development.
There may have been grumblings and dissatisfaction in parliament with the way the country was being governed. But the move on Aug 2 came as a surprise to all and sundry when members of parliament united to remove Somare and his handful of MPs.
There are those that will say Somare’s tenure was up and it was time for him to go. But if there was no pressing or extreme situation which faced the nation last August then O’Neill’s ascension to prime minister was simply a naked grab for power.
We are now left with the unflattering fact that O’Neill took power with the overriding majority of parliament although sadly his actions were unconstitutional. We know this because the courts, as impartial arbiters and interpreters of the law, could only rule following the blueprint of the Constitution.
The next legitimate government must make the fundamental changes to the PNG Constitution and build safeguards into its framework so that there are provisions which will meet and address situations like the one we are experiencing.
The governor-general, far from being just a nominal figurehead, must be given real power to settle disagreements that call into question the constitution. Being a living document, it would be prudent and wise to make compulsory a comprehensive review of the constitution on a periodic basis. The thoughts, ideas and ideals our founding fathers committed to a paper more than 37 years ago has not provided a clear map to navigate through the current impasse.
That does not mean however that we stray from the tenets of our Constitution.
If we do, we throw ourselves at the mercy and whim of flawed men.