Supreme Court okays Opposition Leader Namah to challenge PNG Govt, Parliament

 News that matter in Papua New Guinea

PNG Opposition Leader Belden Namah

Supreme Court okays Opposition Leader Namah to challenge PNG Govt, Parliament

PORT MORESBY: The Supreme Court yesterday (May 12, 2021) ruled that it will proceed with a case filed by Opposition Leader Beldan Namah questioning Parliament’s failure to deqal with a motion of no confidence against the prime minister in November’s session.

Namah is also challenging the constitutionality of Budget 2021 passed during the session.

Details of the Supreme Court ruling was reported by The National:

Namah’s case to proceed

May 13, 2021The NationalMain Stories

Sir Gibbs
Salika

By ZEDAIAH KANAU
THE Supreme Court will proceed with a case filed by Opposition Leader Belden Namah questioning Parliament’s failure to deal with a motion of no confidence against the prime minister during last November’s session.
Namah is also challenging the constitutionality of the 2021 national budget passed during that same session.
A five-man bench comprising Chief Justice Sir Gibbs Salika, Justice David Cannings, Justice Derek Hartshorn, Justice Ere Kariko and Justice Thomas Anis, refused two objection to competency applications filed by Attorney-General Dr Eric Kwa and Speaker Job Pomat after finding no irregularities in Namah’s application.
The panel of judges found that Namah’s application was compliant with the rules.
The objection to competency applications was on the ground that Namah’s application failed to state the relief for which he was contending and was therefore non-compliant with the Supreme Court rules.
Justice Sir Gibbs, on behalf of the judges, said: “We have no difficulty with the interveners’ contention that strict compliance with the Supreme Court rules is necessary.
“And that if an application is non-compliant with the rules, this is a matter that goes to competency of the application.
“The principle of strict compliance with the rules has been developed in the context of the filing of special references under Section 19 of the Constitution.”
Justice Sir Gibbs said the bench upheld submissions from lawyers Peter Kuman representing Dr Kwa and Loani Henao representing Pomat that to comply with the court rules and to be competent, a Section 18 (1) application must under Order 4 state the answer or interpretation (of the constitutional provisions the subject of the application) and relief for which the applicant contends.
However, the judges also upheld submissions by Namah’s lawyer Greg Sheppard.
Sheppard submitted that the application did “seek declarations as to the unconstitutionality of the 2021 national budget and decisions of the Parliament and the Speaker (Pomat) regarding a motion of no confidence in the prime minister”.
The bench said the application sought four declarations.
Justice Sir Gibbs said “a declaration in Papua New Guinea is a form of relief commonly sought in many proceedings in the original jurisdiction of the National Court and the Supreme Court”.
“There is no doubt about this,” he said.
“It was suggested in submissions for the interveners that simply seeking a declaration without seeking consequential relief does not meet the requirements of the rules.
“We reject the submissions.
“(Namah) is seeking declarations,” Justice Sir Gibbs said.
“That is the relief for which he is contending.
“The application is compliant with the rules.
“It meets the standard of strict compliance required.
“The jurisdiction of the court has been properly invoked.
“Both objections to competency are therefore refused.”