SUPREME COURT DESTROY SPEAKER'S "BUSH LAWYER" TACTICS


SC TO MAKE DECISION NEXT WEEK, WIN FOR PROCESS AND RULE OF LAW

By Lawyer Anthorney Rake form the Court Room:
I will briefly state the argument by Lawyers in the submissions in respect to the Constitutional Reference filed by Peter O'Neil. Firstly the Lawyers for O'Neill argued that Section 2 of the Organic Law on the calling of meetings was a wrong provision the Speaker used to recall the Parliament on th3 17th of November 2020 with less then 12 hours Notice. This is because what Belden Namah did on the 13th of November 2020 to adjourn the Parliament was correct within the meaning of Section 111 of the Constitution where it provides that any member of Parliament can adjourn the sitting. As well, what Belden Namah did was adjourned the Parliament. Section 2 of the Organic Law on the Calling of Parliament is very clear: it only relates to calling of Parliament, and not Motion to Adjourn Parliament (Please have a read of Section 111 of the Constitution in conjunction with Section 2 of the Organic Law on the Calling of meetings. And then differentiate motion to adjourn and calling of Parliament). Secondly, there was no power for the speaker to recall Parliament on the 17th of November 2020. The Constitution under section 108 where the functions of the Speaker are clearly set out does not give him any power to call Meetings as he wish with less then 12 hours Notice. There is no provision for him to recall Parliament also in the Organic Law on calling of the Meeting of the Parliament. Furthermore, what he did to say that Belden Namah breached Section 2 of the Organic Law was not right. It is not his fuction to interpret laws and make ruling basing on his interpretation. It is the courts duties. His work is constitutionally confined by virtue and operation of Section 108. The opposing team (speaker and the AG) argued that the motion to adjourn Parliament by Belden Namah was illegal as it was supposed to be done by a minister as per section 2 of the Organic Law. But again when you read that provision carefully, it only applies to the next calling of meetings and it does not apply to the Motion to Adjourn the Parliament as what Belden Namah did. Under section 111 of the Constitution, any member can move a motion, and Belden Namah exercised that privilege to move the motion to adjourn to 1st of December which is that any member can move a motion. The ruling will be on the 9th of December 2020 at 9:30am.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

HIGHLANDS FRAUD F*CKS RUNNING GOVERNMENT AGENCY,,,

AUGUSTINE MANO PNG'S PREMIER CORPORATE CROOK

PNG, VERY RICH YET STILL A VERY VERY POOR COUNTRY

BLIND LEADING THE BLIND, WHY THE PNG ECONOMY STILL SUCKS

James Marape's Missteps Openly Exposed at Australian Forum

MARAPE & PAITA ABOUT TO SIGN AWAY PNG GOLD

A Call for Local Ownership and Fairness