Namah verdict Monday

By KARO JESSE
OPPOSITION Leader Belden Namah through his lawyer told the Supreme Court that he has significant interest in a special reference filed questioning the election of the prime minister because there were serious constitutional issues in the process.
The Supreme Court will make a ruling on Monday whether Namah has standing in questioning the election of James Marape on May 30 last year.
Namah’s standing in the special reference filed against the election of PM on Sept 23 were heard yesterday by a full bench consisting of Justices Oagile Dingake, David Cannings and Teresa Berrigan.
Namah’s lawyer Greg Sheppard, from Young and William Lawyers, submitted that the basis on which Namah claimed to make his standing was that he, as a citizen, had genuine concern for the subject matter of the application.
Sheppard submitted that Namah had standing on the grounds that he was an MP, occupied a public office and Leader of the Opposition.
“We say that the subject of this application raises important constitutional questions relating to, inter alia, the functions of the Opposition leader and the Speaker,” Sheppard said.
Constitutional issues which Sheppard was referring to were that the Speaker of the Parliament accepted the withdrawal of the nomination for the position of prime minister by Peter O’Neill after the close of nominations.
Sheppard claimed that this was inconsistent with the national goals and directives and was unconstitutional and unlawful.
Marape’s lawyer McRonald Nale, from Jema Lawyers, argued that Namah had to demonstrate the law that was breached in election of the PM.
“Even though Namah uses the mention grounds to make his standing, he has to demonstrate clearly the law that was breached in the election of PM,” Nale said.
Nale told the court that Namah’s standing was in play in explaining his (Namah) standing in the application that the election of PM was unconstitutional as claimed in the reference.
Nale submitted that the application raised significant (not trivial, vexation, hypothetical or irrelevant) constitutional issues.
“The applicant must not be mere busybody meddling in other people’s affairs and must not be engaged in litigation for some improper motives as a tactic of delay” he added.
Nale said that because Patrick Pruaitch was the one who nominated Peter O’Neill and the Speaker accepted the withdrawal.
Nale told the court that if there was an issue, Pruaitch should be the one pursuing the matter and not Namah.
Justice Minister and Attorney-General Davis Steven’s lawyer Remo Yalo also made similar contention to Nale and mentioned that what decision the Speaker made, was for parliament and not for the court to decide.
If Namah is granted the standing to proceed, the court will also hear an application regarding amended reference and objection to competency.