Court orders House recall

By CHARLES MOI
PARLIAMENT, in compliance with a Supreme Court order yesterday, will meet on Friday to debate and vote on an Opposition motion of no confidence in Prime Minister Peter O’Neill.
The motion, submitted by the Opposition MPs on June 7 to the chairman of Parliament’s private business committee, was to be cleared for debate the next day. But it was not tabled. On June 8, Parliament was adjourned to August 2.
Chief Justice Sir Salamo Injia, Deputy Chief Justice Sir Gibbs Salika and Justice Colin Makail, in a unanimous decision, granted the application by Opposition Leader Don Polye because Parliament had breached certain sections of the Constitution.
The court ordered that the Speaker “recall Parliament forthwith within five days inclusive of today (yesterday) for the motion of no confidence to be introduced, debated and voted upon, as a matter of national importance and national urgency”.
Acting Clerk of Parliament Kala Aufa yesterday issued a notice to all MPs that “the Speaker has fixed 2pm on Friday as the date of the next meeting of Parliament”.
The court ordered that the motion be placed “as the first item of business of Parliament on the first day of the sitting”.
The panel of judges pointed out that because of the adjournment of parliament to August 2, “the motion would become ineffective because by July 27, the time limited for bringing a motion of no confidence in the prime minister under Section 145 (2)(b) of the Constitution will have expired”.
Sir Salamo who read the 21-page judgment said it was a special type of motion under the Constitution.
“A notice of motion of no confidence is not a parochial matter but one of national importance because of its ability to change government if it is successfully moved.
“Granted that the five technical requirements are met on the face of the notice, it should be cleared by the committee without difficulty, in little time for it to be tabled in Parliament by the clerk without delay.”
It was the Opposition’s fourth motion of no confidence submitted within the past eight months to the private business committee but were not tabled in Parliament.
The judges said: “Clearly there is a pattern that has developed, that all four notices have not progressed beyond the committee stage. Whatever the reasons are, the fact remains that these rejections are unprecedented and pose a real threat to parliamentary democracy in this country.”

Chief Justice Sir Salamo Injia, Deputy Chief Justice Sir Gibbs Salika and Justice Colin Makail, in a unanimous decision, granted the application by Opposition Leader Don Polye because Parliament had breached certain sections of the Constitution.
The court ordered that the Speaker “recall Parliament forthwith within five days inclusive of today (yesterday) for the motion of no confidence to be introduced, debated and voted upon, as a matter of national importance and national urgency”.
Acting Clerk of Parliament Kala Aufa yesterday issued a notice to all MPs that “the Speaker has fixed 2pm on Friday as the date of the next meeting of Parliament”. The court ordered that the motion be placed “as the first item of business of Parliament on the first day of the sitting”.
The panel of judges pointed out that because of the adjournment of parliament to Aug 2, “the motion would become ineffective because by July 27, the time limited for bringing a motion of no confidence in the prime minister under Section 145 (2)(b) of the Constitution will have expired”.
Sir Salamo who read the 21-page judgment said it was a special type of motion under the Constitution.
“A notice of motion of no confidence is not a parochial matter but one of national importance because of its ability to change government if it is successfully moved.
“Granted that the five technical requirements are met on the face of the notice, it should be cleared by the committee without difficulty, in little time for it to be tabled in Parliament by the clerk without delay.”
It was the Opposition’s fourth motion of no confidence submitted within the past eight months to the private business committee but were not tabled in Parliament.
The judges said: “Clearly there is a pattern that has developed, that all four notices have not progressed beyond the committee stage … the fact remains that these rejections are unprecedented and pose a real threat to parliamentary democracy.”