The handling of the notice on a motion of no-confidence vote in the Prime Minister Peter O’Neill by the members of Private Business Parliamentary committee has raised a lot of questions. The Opposition’s shadow Minister for Justice and Attorney-General Allan Marat said the committee had ventured into, what he called a pathetic exercise which has no end only to drag democratic propriety into gross abuse. When commenting on the government seeking a Supreme Court reference on the motion, the committee questioning the authenticity of the signatures and the membership status of Vanimo Green MP Belden Namah due to a leadership tribunal, Mr Marat said the Prime Minister Peter O’Neill and his government was only looking for excuses to set up a barrier to stop the motion. “What happened was on March 22nd the Opposition served the notice on a motion of no-confidence in the Prime Minister with the acting Speaker’s office. “The next day they (government) begin to think they have got to put a stop to the motion. They then went on and filed the reference on the 23rd. What they were trying to do was to set up a barrier to the progressing of the motion of no-confidence. “And the barrier was one of subjudice. They filed the reference so that if we pursue, the motion could raise the issue of subjudice, meaning that the matter is now before the Supreme Court and ought not to be deliberated on, quoting sections 142, 143 and 145 of the Constitution and section 63 of the Organic Law on the Integrity of Political Parties and Candidates 2003 but they forgot, in our view, that they filed this reference on a non-effective notice on a motion of no-confidence because the motion is only effective when the Clerk of Parliament gives its notice on the floor of Parliament but it has not taken place until now,” he told reporters in Port Moresby today (Wednesday). Marat said the argument by the government is the matter is now subjudice, adding it is going to be an insurmountable argument in court by them. “There is no case. So our view is that when they filed the reference the next day after we served the notice of motion, there was really nothing about it. “The notice of motion becomes effective only when the clerk gives notice of it on the floor of Parliament pursuant to the standing orders,” said a well-versed Marat, a lawyer himself. He further said the standing orders were very clear, adding the committee’s only function is to examine the tonnes on the notice of motion to determine whether the matter is parochial in nature or is of national importance. “Those are the only two issues the committee is empowered under the standing orders to perform to determine the terms of notice of motion. Not to determine our signatures. “They have gone so low; they have acted outside their proper functions in the standing orders. That probably is an argument which may not be necessary for further enforcement because all of us signed on the notice were given letters. I willingly and freely signed and affixed my signature on the motion of no-confidence,” he said. Mr Marat queried where in the standing orders it required the committee to question the signatures of those MPs who signed on the motion of no-confidence, saying there is nothing in the standing orders. “They have stooped so low to make that required of us. So we think that these reasons are to prolong this whole process. They are abusing the democratic rights of our people through us the representatives to question the performance of the government. “The powers were given to all of us by the people. It is for their sake, these provisions are placed in there. In the past notices of motion of no-confidence, they have never seriously gone this far. They only looked for two things whether the terms of the motion were of parochial nature or it is of national importance,” the shadow Minister said. He made reference to the past when Sir Michael Somare, who moved a motion with only one page, saying those signatories affixed were not questioned. The Rabaul MP said Namah was still a member of Parliament as he has stayed his suspension. “I was still wandering why were some of those members in government were still allowed to go in there. I think their cases are more serious than Belden Namah’s. “Some were convicted but were saved by their right of appeal in the Supreme Court. “They are back in Parliament asking very serious questions about other members of Parliament of their involvement in certain activities,” he said. Marat has urged the committee to treat this motion with greatest respect which it deserves because it is a part of the democratic process. “You continue to talk about democracy but how many of us really understand it. That really starts with the people through us. “We ought to be doing things for the people and not for our pockets, foreign accounts, friends and multi-national corporations who may be hiding some of our ill-gotten wealth from PNG. That is what the Opposition is about,” he said.
0 Comments
Your comment will be posted after it is approved.
Leave a Reply. |
Papua New Guinea Breaking NewsPapua New Guinea daily News updates Let Your Voice be heard: Submit your news articles, commentaries, letters , Photos, Media Releases etc to us on this email: pngfacts@gmail.com
Mining & PetroleumTop Links |