Court rejects O’Neill’s bid
By GEORGINA KOREI
A BID by former prime minister Peter O’Neill to nullify last year’s Parliament sitting which elected James Marape as prime minister was refused by the Supreme Court in Waigani yesterday.
A panel comprising Chief Justice Sir Gibbs Salika, Deputy Chief Justice Ambeng Kandakasi, Justice Panuel Mogish, Justice David Cannings and Justice Ere Kariko handed down the decision yesterday in the presence of lawyers, including Justice Minister and Attorney-General Pila Niningi.
The five-men bench by majority, refused O’Neill’s application for a declaration that the election of the Prime Minister at the meeting of Parliament on Aug 9, 2022 was unconstitutional.
The orders of the Supreme Court were that;
O’Neill’s application for a declaration that Section 63 of the Organic law on the integrity of Political parties and Candidates is unconstitutional is refused;
O’Neill’s application for a declaration that the meeting of the Parliament on Aug 9, 2022 was unconstitutional is refused; and
Parties to bear their own costs of the proceedings.
The Supreme Court had agreed that section 1 (1) of the Organic Law on the Callings of Meetings of Parliament was breached when the Governor-General issued a National Gazette on Aug 1, 2022, which directed Parliament to meet on Aug 9, 2022 for the first time after General Election 2022 (GE22).
The court held that the Gazette should have been issued the day after Aug 5, 2022 – the day marked by the Electoral Commission for the return of writs.
“Here the requirement was not complied with as the time and date of the first meeting of the Parliament was fixed and notice of it was published on Aug 1, 2022, which was before the date fixed for the return of writs of Aug 5, 2022,” the court ruled.
However, four judges – Justice Kandakasi, Justice Mogish, Justice Cannings and Justice Kariko – ruled that although section 1 (1) of the Organic Law on the Callings of Meetings of Parliament was breached, there was no evidence of prejudice suffered by the MPs, including O’Neill.
“Section 1 (1) of the Organic Law on the Callings of Meetings of Parliament does not indicate the consequences of failure to comply with the notice requirement of section 1(1). There was no breach of the overriding requirement of section 124(1) of the Constitution that the Parliament be called to meet not more than seven days after the day fixed of the writs (as the Parliament met four days after the date fixed for the return of writs).
In the circumstances, breach of the requirement of section 1(1) was inconsequential,” the four judges ruled.
Sir Gibbs on the other hand said: “The notice calling for Parliament to meet is invalid and ineffective. The meeting of Parliament (on Aug 9, 2022) could not proceed on that defective notice. Parliament must dissolve itself to repeat the process properly under section 124 of the Constitution and Section 1 (1) of the Organic Law.” However, the other four judges disagreed with Sir Gibbs view.
O’Neill, the Ialibu-Pangia MP, commenced proceedings under section 18 (1) of the Constitution seeking various declarations and orders, including that Parliament’s sitting on Aug 9, 2022 as unconstitutional.
Six parties were granted leave to intervene in the proceedings. The Attorney General was the first intervener, People’s National Congress as the second, Pangu as the third, Speaker of Parliament as the fourth, Electoral Commission and the fifth and Registrar of Political Parties the sixth.