CONSTITUTION BREACHED BY SOMARE AND MOBS
JOHN NONGORR
Sir Michael Somares Government has again broken PNGs Constitution for temporary gain - to retain political power. The events that unfolded on the floor of the Parliament on July 21 were not only contrary to the Constitution but also a disgrace to parliamentary democracy.
On July 21, Parliament adjourned to November 16. As noted earlier, in the 12-month period between August 6, 2009 and August 7, 2010, the Parliament sat for 35 days. Because it will not sit until after August 7, 2010, there will be no opportunity for any more sittings. Therefore, the 35 days that Parliament has sat falls far short of the 63 days decided by the Supreme Court, and this is a breach of Section 124(1) of the Constitution.
But, establishing strong principles of law and ethics on which the country will be governed in the long-run, cultivating a sense of fairness in politics and in the important rules that govern the Parliament for example, are critical to building a strong nation. Such principles observed and upheld should serve as beacons for all PNGans to follow.
The fact that the Constitution was broken is clear. Sir Michael Somare, as Prime Minister, is responsible for Minister Paul Tiensten and Speaker Jeffrey Nape colluding to break Section 124 of the Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court in 1999 and 2000.
Section 124(1) says that the Parliament must sit for nine weeks in each year. In 1999 and 2000, the Supreme Court ruled that nine weeks means 63 days. In the year from August 6, 2009 to August 7, 2010, the Parliament would have sat for only 35 days. There is a shortfall of 28 days.
The reason why Sir Michael Somare, in concert with Mr Tiensten and Mr Nape, broke the Constitution, was for short-term personal political power gain. As such, it is not in the interest of the country. The three cannot claim to act in the interest of the country if they are breaking the laws of the country, the very laws that give them status and political power.
Breach of Constitution, Section 124(1)
Section 124(1) of the Constitution says that The Parliament shall be called to meet ... in principle, for not less than nine weeks in each 12 month period.
In the two Supreme Court decisions - first, SCR No.3 of 1999 - Special Reference by the Ombudsman Commission (1999) SC628; and second, SCR No.3 of 2000 - Special Reference by the Governor-General re Sitting Days (2002) SC722 - the Supreme Court ruled that the nine-week requirement means that Parliament must sit for 63 days in each 12 month period. (This 12 month period is computed from the date writs are returned after a general election. Most writs following the 2007 general election were returned on August 6, 2007. Therefore, the 12 month period is from 06 August one year to August 7, the next year.)
In the preceding 12 month period from August 6, 2008 to August 7, 2009, the Parliament sat for only 33 days. This was short by 30 days.
Supreme Court decisions are binding and are law.
The Supreme Court interpreted Section 124(1) in the two named cases in a special procedure under Section 19 of the Constitution called Special References. Once the Supreme Court interprets the law, the Courts interpretation or opinion is binding. Section 19(2) of the Constitution makes this clear, by stating - An opinion given ... has the same binding effect as any other decision of the Supreme Court. When the Supreme Court pronounces what the law is on a particular matter, that is the law.
A later Supreme Court or the Parliament may change the law as pronounced by the Supreme Court. Until that happens, the law as pronounced by the Supreme Court must be followed by everyone.
To disregard the law as pronounced by the Supreme Court is a breach of the law. It is also disrespectful of the Supreme Court and the judiciary, the third arm of government.
Why is it that the Parliament is allowed to continue to breach Section 124(1) of the Constitution?
It is because lawyers advising the Government and individual politicians who want to retain political power to themselves are influenced by only one thing - they want to retain political power and they approach important legal requirements with that as their only objective, and their interpretation of the law is twisted to suit this objective. In other words, they do not care about the bad consequences that arise from it.
As to who is the prime minister, speaker or minister exercising political power in 2, 3, 4 or 5 years is a short--term thing. In its basic form, it is another job to be prime minister, minister or speaker.
Instead, PNG has and continues to witness politicians (and their yes-man lawyers) twisting laws to suit short-term political power gain and preach that somehow this is good for PNG. It should not matter who is prime minister, minister or speaker. What should matter is that, whoever they are, they follow the law and show some sense of fairness.
The constitutional obligation on Parliament to sit for 63 days in each 12 months period
In the first Supreme Court decision - SCR No.3 of 1999 - Special Reference by the Ombudsman Commission (1999) SC628 - a reference filed by the Ombudsman Commission, the Supreme Court ruled that the nine week requirement means that the Parliament must sit for 63 days in each 12 month period. This court was made up by seven judges. Six of the seven judges said that nine weeks means 63 days. Then Chief Justice, Sir Arnold Amet, disagreed. The majority of six judges set the law.
Apart from stating the law that Parliament must sit for 63 days in each 12 month period, the Supreme Court also ruled that:
1. the 63 days sitting requirement was mandatory, meaning that the Parliament must aim to sit for 63 days; and
2. the National Court had power to impose imprisonment and fines on MPs under Section 22 and 23 of the Constitution.
In the second Supreme Court decision - SCR No.3 of 2000 - Special Reference by the Governor-General re Sitting Days (2002) SC722, also seven judges were involved. This was a reference filed by the National Executive Council. Its main objective was to get the Supreme Court to overturn the first decision. I was one of the lawyers who asked the Supreme Court to overturn the first decision.
In particular, in this second case, the Supreme Court was asked to rule that:
1. Parliament did not have to sit for 63 days but could sit for nine weeks meaning the normal parliamentary week which consists of sittings on four days a week, making 45 sitting days;
2. this requirement was not mandatory; and
3. that action cannot be taken against MPs under Sections 22 and 23 of the Constitution.
Again, then Chief Justice Sir Arnold Amet (and on some issues, Justice Don Sawong) were in the minority. The majority of five judges ruled again that Parliament must sit for 63 days, and affirmed that action can be brought in the National Court against MPs breaching this requirement under Sections 22 and 23 of the Constitution.
Therefore, the second decision reaffirmed the law as stated in the first decision - that Parliament must sit for 63 days in each 12 month period. If this is not observed, proceedings can be brought in the National Court against MPs who are responsible for breaking the requirement.
The one thing that the Supreme Court was very clear on is that adjourning the Parliament for a long period, to avoid a no confidence vote, is not a good reason for Parliament to not sit for the required 63 days.
Until another Supreme Court or the Parliament changes this law on Section 124(1) of the Constitution, the Parliament must sit for 63 days in each 12 month period. Sitting for less than 63 days, especially if done in order to avoid a no confidence vote, is in breach of Section 124(1).
Adjournment in July 2010 sitting of Parliament
In the last July sitting, it is clear that the reason why Parliament was adjourned until November 16 is to frustrate a no confidence vote. That is the only reason why Sir Michael, in collusion with Mr Tiensten and Mr Nape, not only broke Section 124(1) of the Constitution but they breached the Standing Orders of the Parliament towards the same aim.
So knowing that the PM, the speaker and Mr Tienstan breached the constitution, what will happen to them? Will they be charge or are they above the justice system as usual?!!! Our politicians are a big joke and they play politics like they are playing marbles. Its about time the PM resign from politics & somebody new take over and better not be the son as PNG is a sovereign state not a monachy for the crown to be passed on.
ReplyDeletePRIME MINISTER Somare and his son Arthur arranged for members of their government coalition to be paid K2 million each immediately after Speaker Jeffrey Nape adjourned Parliament last month.
ReplyDeleteThe payments were claimed to be District Support Improvement Program grants, yet it is reported that the Finance Department was instructed not to pay Opposition members these funds.
When challenged by MP Sam Basil, sources at the Finance Department confirmed that an unequal disbursement had been made in direct contravention of the PNG Constitution.
The funds were "to keep the government in power”, staff were reported as saying.
It seems public funds now clearly and openly are being used as bribes to keep Somare and his family in power.
Nau igat wanpla lida,
I tok, 'Nau mi lukim ples klia,
Bai mi baim ol lain,
Na stap longpla taim,'
Tasol husat igiamon yumi a?
[Now here’s a leader
Who says ‘I see an opportunity
To purchase some loyalty
And stay a long time,’
Who’s kidding us?]
Look at how fat these leaders have become? Everyone one of them has a double or triple chin from all that lazing around, and heaps of eating. Shouldn't we start measuring the corruptibility of our leaders based upon how fast they gain weight once they're in office? It shows their lack of self discipline, as well as their temptation for fast riches.
ReplyDeleteWe need to become very straight and clear as to what accounts the K2 million was paid and for what purpose. It's hardly a bribe (and certainly not illegal) if the money was paid into their rural development accounts, for use on projects back in their district. Unethical, yes. Illegal, no.
ReplyDeleteSo come up with the facts and the details, not more sweeping statements and tok nating opinions that don't shed light on the issue.
PRIME Minister Sir Michael Somare has put off his Mt Hagen trip at the eleventh hour for the second time, frustrating organisers and directly demeaning the leadership of Governor Tom Olga.
ReplyDeleteSir Michael cancelled his original visit scheduled on August 10 and deferred it to this morning, but again this trip will not eventuate as planned. It is not known why the Grand Chief changed his mind at the last minute, but Deputy Governor Wai Rapa announced that Sir Michael could have abandoned the trip to attend an in-law’s funeral and for medical checkup in Singapore. Many local MPs were tightlipped but ordinary people infuriated by the postponement have questioned the leadership of Governor Olga to capably host top leaders like the Prime Minister. “How come the PM dumps us the people and the governor who claims to be an NA MP twice? This is a big letdown for the province when we have prepared for so long, hoping to see and hear him,” says a Moge leader, who sought anonymity.
Schools were closed when a public holiday was declared on Sir Michael’s first cancelled visit, prompting Mr Olga to call an urgent press conference at the Highlander Hotel to relay his apologies.
“I wish to apologise to the people of Western Highlands for the cancellation of the Prime Minister’s visit. He has deferred it to next Wednesday (today),” Mr Olga said in the Post-Courier of August 11, when apologizing to the people and holidaying school children after Sir Michael’s first cancelled visit.
Mr Rapa and Dei MP Puri Ruing have appealed for calm and understanding, saying “this is not our fault but the PM’s timing”. Mr Ruing said Sir Michael had committed to come but added that he could have had other pressing matters that could interrupt his schedule. They said Governor Olga was in Port Moresby yesterday in an attempt to lure the Prime Minister home.
The Western Highlands Events Council, the government arm that was tasked to plan Sir Michael’s visit, was shattered by the news. Chairman Samuel Angimp is believed to have recorded an announcement at local radio station 91.5 Eagle FM to be aired late last night but the contents of his message could not be accessed.
Mr Angimp was reluctant when the Post-Courier requested him to relay the same message for the benefit of its readers and the general public. Sources say Mr Angimp returned from Port Moresby with the red carpet only to be reminded of the cancellation.
The Prime Minister was to officially launch the provincial government’s master plan for the K600 million Mt Hagen City redevelopment project. According to the Events Council, the visit has been postponed to September but the actual date has not been released.
Governor Olga could not be reached for comments yesterday.
Someone please delete this clown's post...
ReplyDeleteHe is expressing his thoughts, leave him be, this is a public forum...
ReplyDelete3 fatty fatty little piggies!!!!!!
ReplyDeleteTom Olga has become a disgusting Somare tea boy. To think, a holiday for the PM?
ReplyDeleteWestern Highlands is beyond MR Olga's capacity. The guys is just cruising through..it take's men with guts to do it; this kid has no working life experience in both public and private sector life, just an opportunist the WH people thought they'd try out; most politics minded western highlanders are carried away with petty politics so miss people with good standing. Look at the top standing people they could choose if they choose to run for office...Prof John Nongorr, Sir Philip Kapal (Jiwaka will still be WH as long as NA politics drags on come 2012), Tom Watinga, Andrew Ogil etc.. These are few examples of people with proven management track record in business,law, politics and family life. Instead, the blind is conning the illiterate and have produced this kid who is a laughing stock.
ReplyDeleteSo before the once vibrant province goes down the drain, think sensibly and use common sense to elect a true leader.
Thanks for the information. I think that you should wash your face at least 3 to 4 times a day. You’ll be surprised how much better your face will look.
ReplyDeleteonline pharmacy