Speaker, Kwa join parlt case

By KARO JESSE
TWO interveners have been granted leave by the Supreme Court to be parties in an application filed by Opposition Leader Belden Namah over whether parliament was constitutionally adjourned on Dec 16.
Justice Derek Hartshorn yesterday granted leave to Parliament Speaker Job Pomat and Department of Justice and Attorney-General secretary Dr Eric Kwa after he found that both parties had sufficient interest in matters which arose from the application.
Pomat is represented by lawyer Loani Henao and Dr Kwa, who applied in the capacity as the attorney-general, is represented by lawyer Peter Kuman.
Namah is represented by Greg Sheppard from Young and Williams Lawyers.
There was no objection from Namah’s lawyer for both parties’ applications to intervene as they were also named as parties whose interest may be directly affected by the application.
When parliament met in December, the Opposition submitted a notice of motion against Prime Minister James Marape.
The motion was submitted to the chairman of parliamentary committee on private members’ business.
Namah claimed the committee did not table the motion in parliament when it sat on Dec 16, thus, the Speaker failed to conduct parliament in a way to facilitate a valid motion of no confidence.
He filed the application on Dec 18, seeking to invoke the jurisdiction of the court using certain provisions of the constitution.
The application raised important constitutional questions relating to proper interpretation and application of the constitution, and:

• WHETHER the 2021 Budget passed by parliament on Dec 16 was consistent with the constitution and the spirit of the constitution; and,
• WHETHER the decision by parliament to adjourn to April 20 was consistent with the constitution, with regard to the fact that the mandatory process started by submitting a notice of motion filed against Marape by the

Opposition was not fully completed.
Namah claimed that the decision of parliament to adjourn to April 20 without deliberately debating and voting on the motion was inconsistent with the constitution.