PM’s post vacant, say two judges

THREE out of the five judges of the Supreme Court have ruled that there was no vacancy in the Prime Minister’s office when Peter O’Neill was elected to that post in August.
The five judges handed down their individual decisions on the constitutional validity of the formation of the O’Neill government,.
Two judges ruled that the prime minister’s post was vacant.
Deputy Chief Justice Gibbs Salika and Justice Bernard Sakora were of the view that the motion on Aug 2 to declare the prime minister’s post vacant in order to appoint O’Neill as prime minister was legitimate.
“I do not see anything wrong with the motion,” Salika said.  
Salika said Sir Michael had been critically ill for  five months and unable to perform the duties of the prime minister and vacancy of the post had existed, only to be formally declared.
Salika said such activity in parliament was non-justiciable – meaning the judiciary could not interfere with it.
“The court should stay clear from parliament’s arena,” Salika said.
He also said there was nothing in the Constitution requiring an explanation for the motion to declare the prime minister’s post vacant and that the process was legitimate in a democracy.
Salika also pointed out that the events of Aug 2 took place because the National Executive Council during the Somare government was frustrating and irresponsible by its inaction to present the report on Sir Michael’s health status in parliament.
He said the NEC had failed to comply with certain provisions of the Prime Minister and NEC Act. It had sat on the parliament’s right to receive two medical statements regarding Sir Michael’s health resulting in the Aug 2 event which came about as a result of anxiety and uncertainty in the future of the country’s leadership.
In relation to the alleged three consecutive absences in parliament by Sir Michael, Salika said he found that there were only two consecutive absences. Sakora also said the “NEC defaulted very badly” by keeping the nation in suspense for a prolonged period in relation to Sir Michael’s health.
Sakora also pointed out that the authority of the National Alliance Inc that took sides with the referrer needed clarification for its involvement given that its members sat at both sides of the parliament benches. Sakora also said given the events of Aug 2 nothing had changed much.
He said it was “state necessity” that needed consideration and priority.
Given the fact that the O’Neill government was voted 70-24 in, Sakora queried how politically stable a 24 member government would be.
“How can 24 people run the country?” Sakora said.
However, the court ruled 3:2 in favor of Sir Michael’s government as being the legitimate one to rule.