Pomat Hijacks Parliament

by ALOIS JEREWAI

 

The Organic Law on the calling of Meetings of the Parliament.

This relatively little known Organic Law has seemingly put a lid over the boiling pot of mass Parliamentary rebellion against the Executive Government of Prime Minister James Marape. According to the letter of the law, namely section 2(a)(i) being the relevant provision, rendered the actions in the Parliament on Friday 13th. November , invalid. Especially the adjournment to 1st. December.

Section 2(a)(i) says:

 

"2. CALLING OF OTHER MEETINGS.

(1) In relation to any meeting of the Parliament, other than the first meeting after a general election, the time and date for the meeting-

(a) shall-

(i) be fixed by the Parliament on motion without notice by a Minister;....."

This Organic Law is authorized under section 124(2) of the Constitution, which says:

"(2) An Organic Law shall make provision for the calling of meetings by the Parliament".

Subsection (1) of section 124 says that "The Parliament shall....meet not less frequently than three times in each period of twelve months, and, in principle, for not less than nine weeks in each such period".

The section 124 authorisation provision of the Constitution did not restrict to only a Minister to move a motion without notice by a Minister.

Therefore section 2(a)(i) of the Organic Law is unConstitutional. The restrictive clause in that provision deprives the Parliamentary representative rights of all non-Minister MPs in the Parliament , which cannot be allowed , going by the reasoning and ruling of the Supreme Court 7 Member Bench in the case of the Supreme Court Reference in the matter of the Organic Law on the Integrity of Political Parties and Candidates (SC REF No. 11 of 2008) , published judgement SC 1057 (2010). In that case, as to the prohibitary provisions of the OLIPAC Law, the Supreme Court loudly proclaimed that the representative exercise of the functions of Parliamentarians in the Parliament SHALL NOT be restricted in any way whatsoever.

 

In view of that Decision of the Supreme Court, section 2(a)(i) of the Organic Law on the Calling of the meetings of Parliament where it restricts a motion of that nature to be moved only by a Minister, is unConstitutional and invalid.

 

But does section 2(a)(i) come into play at all, as concerns the motion by the Opposition Leader on Friday 13th. November to adjourn Parliament to 1st. December?

The answer is no.

The motion by the Opposition Leader was for an adjournment of the Parliament in it's current meeting ( primarily for the budget) to 1st. December and not for another meeting of the Parliament. The Parliament by majority elected to do so. Section 2(a)(i) of the Organic Law on meetings was irrelevant.

The resumption of and continuation of the adjourned meeting by the Speaker today (Tuesday 17th. November) was therefore in contravention of a valid resolution if the Parliament, and was therefore invalid.

The Parliament must therefore resume legally and validly on 1st. December as resolved.

I have set out my opinion without fear or favour; without affiliation to either the Opposition or the Government ; without influences of any nature whatsoever, but so that this Nation of ours can be governed according to the Rule of Law. Our Nation must not descend into a Nation of Bush-kanakas , which description was of our forefathers and mothers, which we must shed!

For the sake of the future of our people and future generations, I call on the Speaker Hon Job Pomat, and the Prime Minister, Hon James Marape, to recall Parliament, re-table the Budget, and test your strength on the Floor of the Parliament , and let the lawful process determine who governs our still beautiful country.