Ruling favours Pomat

By ZEDAIAH KANAU
THE Supreme Court has ruled that there was no constitutional breach by Speaker Job Pomat on Dec 16 to adjourn Parliament without dealing with a motion of no confidence against the prime minister.
The ruling dismissed a bid by Opposition Leader Belden Namah to have Parliament recalled.
A five-man bench comprising Chief Justice Sir Gibbs Salika, Justice David Cannings, Justice Derek Hartshorn, Justice Ere Kariko and Justice Thomas Anis unanimously ruled that Parliament’s decision to adjourn to April 20, was not unreasonable and the Parliament was under no obligation to provide any reason for the adjournment, let alone substantiate reasons for its decision to adjourn.
Namah’s lawyer Greg Sheppard had argued that Pomat’s action last Dec 16, was inconsistent with Section 50,111,115,141,142 (5) (a) and 145 of the Constitution.
However, the bench upheld submissions by the two interveners, Attorney-General Dr Eric Kwa and Speaker Job Pomat, who were represented by lawyers Peter Kuman and Loani Henao respectively.
Sir Gibbs found that there was no breach on those sections of the Constitution and that the procedures prescribed for Parliament or its committee were non-justiciable.
“Section 50 appears not to be relevant here, with respect,” Sir Gibbs said.
“Section 50 refers to citizens wishing to contest election to get into Parliament which is a totally different matter and not a matter pertaining to the motion.
“Was Section 111 of the Constitution breached?
“The simple answer is no. Why?
“Section 115 (2) and 134 of the Constitution do not permit the court to inquire into the proceedings of Parliament,” he said.