Wednesday 27 November 2024
Minister for Justice and Attorney-General, Hon. Pila Niningi, will be seeking further interpretation from the Supreme Court on s.145 and s.142 of the Constitution whether a second Vote of No Confidence (VONC) motion is allowed to be moved against the same prime minister.
The Minister has instructed lawyers to institute proceedings under section 19 of the Constitution to seek the Supreme Court’s interpretation and application of constitutional provisions relating to the process of Vote of No Confidence.
“As the country’s principal legal advisor to the National Executive, I am seeking guidance from the Supreme Court on certain aspects of VONC under s.145 and s.142 of the Constitution.
“I will be asking the Supreme Court to provide clarity as to whether a second VONC can be moved against a government that has already been the subject of a VONC.”
Minister Niningi said his decision is to make sure that the spirit of the VONC provision as envisaged by the founding fathers is kept and not abused as seen many times in the past from numerous Votes of No Confidence motions being brought against prime ministers.
“Papua New Guinea’s founding fathers, in their wisdom through the Constitutional Planning Committee, have included VONC as a means by which an Executive Government is held accountable by the people through their elected representatives in Parliament.
“It was intended as a mechanism to measure government performance over the first 18 months in office, and make change if this was vital.
“For the Marape-Rosso Government, it has passed this ‘test’ by an overwhelming majority vote of 75 – 32 on 12 September 2024 on the floor of Parliament.”
Minister Niningi said that through the questions being posed in section 19 , he is seeking the Court’s assistance to clarify whether an executive government should be subjected to another ‘test’ by way of a second VONC and if a second VONC reflects the spirit of this provision as envisaged by the Constitutional Planning Committee in drafting the Constitution of PNG.
“I am concerned that since Independence, VONC has been abused for self-interest of a few politicians and has lost its intended purpose as envisaged by the Constitutional Planning Committee.
“Since Independence, I have witnessed countless VONCs brought against prime ministers which have all been accompanied with instability in government and the Public Service, and a loss in investor confidence.
“Seeking the Supreme Court’s clarification in this important area was good for the country’s benefit and the development of jurisprudence for PNG,” he said.