By Staff Reporter

PNG High Court to Examine Constitutionality of Parliament's Adjournment in August Hearing

11/7/2024

A five-member Supreme Court bench will review the Opposition’s amended reference application on August 1 to decide whether to grant leave for the proposed changes. Justice Derek Hartshorn, who is presiding over the case, has determined that since the bench previously granted standing for the Opposition's reference, it is suitable for them to address the issue of whether leave should be granted for the amendment.

Justice Hartshorn has ordered that, in accordance with Order 4, Rule 10, all parties must file and serve their affidavits by June 26. This preparation is necessary for the court to consider the Opposition's application effectively during the scheduled hearing on August 1.

The application to amend the reference was submitted by Opposition Leader Douglas Tomuriesa on July 1 through his lawyer, Greg Sheppard of Young and William Lawyers. Tomuriesa’s affidavit asserts that the adjournment of Parliament from June 5, 2024, to September 3, 2024, is unreasonable and unconstitutional. He claims that this adjournment violates Section 124 of the Constitution, which mandates that the parliamentary year should end on August 4, 2024.

Tomuriesa also highlighted that Parliament sat for only 31 days, whereas Section 124 requires a minimum of 63 sitting days. This shortfall forms a significant part of Tomuriesa’s argument for amending the reference.

The original constitutional reference, filed on June 10, sought to compel Speaker Job Pomat to recall Parliament within seven days. This reference stemmed from the Opposition's fifth notice of a motion of no confidence, which was submitted to Pomat as Chairman of the Parliamentary Business Committee (PBC) on May 29.

The motion was not cleared for tabling in Parliament on June 5, leading to an outcry among Opposition MPs. They questioned Pomat regarding the reasons for the motion's delay and subsequently walked out of the chamber before Parliament was adjourned until September 3.

The Opposition's action and the subsequent parliamentary adjournment have heightened tensions, prompting the Supreme Court’s involvement to resolve the dispute over the parliamentary procedures and the constitutionality of the adjournment.

Also read