THEO ZURENUOC'S CONDUCT OF VOTE OF NO CONFIDENCE --WHAT DID YOU MISS?

 by MANGI MOROBE
Some of the conducts that questioned the impartiality of Speaker Theo Zurenuoc during the Motion of No Confidence Vote are: 

 1. He is the head of the Legislative arm of the Government which should, as is done in many other established democracies, provide the appropriate check and balance on the Executive Government’s running of the country. He has willingly failed miserably as he is a member of the ruling party, PNC, which he joined while being a Speaker. 

 2. In his failure, the Court intervened. However, he dared to attack the judiciary and its orders for the recalling of Parliament. 

3. Despite the Clear terms of the Supreme Court Order for the Vote of No Confidence to be introduced, debated and voted on in accordance with section 145 of the Constitution, the Speaker initially insisted to have the motion introduced, debated and voted on 15 July 2016 the same day. If it wasn’t for the subsequent Ancillary Orders of the Supreme Court, the Speaker would not have allowed the 7 days’ notice period. The Ancillary Orders, though unnecessary and may be unconventional, were issued because of the Speaker’s contemplated strategy to bypass the 7 days’ notice period. That was reported in the Post Courier newspaper on Friday 15 July. 

4. On 22 July, the following conducts of the Speaker makes it plain that he was tailoring the proceedings to favour the Government: a) He claimed that he would not adjourn the proceedings, knowing that the O’Neill Government had spent a lot of resources to secure the numbers and any more delays would be disastrous. b) He asserted that he would not allow any substitution of name of the Alternate Prime Minister in the motion, which is in contravention of section 145 (3) of the Constitution and the Court Orders. 

The Court Orders did not prevent a substitution. The Court Orders in fact directed that section 145 of the Constitution be complied with which included substitution of alternate PM. The Speaker knew that a nominee other than Don Polye would likely attract a defection from Government to change Peter O’Neill hence he played his part to lock up the candidacy to Polye. That was later confirmed by Ben Micah in his speech when he said every MP is capable of being the PM. c) After the Mover movies the motion and gives his reason, the Seconder had to give a short secondment speech. The Alternate PM has to give a speech accepting the nomination and giving a short speech. 

Then the incumbent PM gives a Speech and responds to the allegations. All of these were not observed by the Speaker. The Speaker appears to have known who on the Government side would be speaking, and he was picking them. After that, he quickly opted to take a vote when the PM and the alternate PM even did not speak. So tell me if the Speaker was Impartial.

Popular posts from this blog

MARAPE & PAITA ABOUT TO SIGN AWAY PNG GOLD

HIGHLANDS FRAUD F*CKS RUNNING GOVERNMENT AGENCY,,,

Connect PNG Unveiled: A Tale of Ambition, Scandal, and the Quest for Accountability

James Marape's Missteps Openly Exposed at Australian Forum

PNG GOVERNMENT MINISTER IN PORN VIDEO

James Marape: A Complex Political Trajectory

PNC CANDIDATE & FORMER NHC CEO FILMED WIFE HAVING SEX WITH COUSIN IN NHC CEO'S OFFICE