Supreme Court rules O’Neill can question legality of 11th Parliament’s maiden sitting
News that matter in Papua New Guinea
Supreme Court rules O’Neill can question
legality of 11th Parliament’s maiden sitting
PORT MORESBY: The Supreme Court has ruled that
Ialibu-Pagia MP Peter O’Neill has standing to question the legality of the 11th
Parliament’s maiden sitting on Aug 9.
A five-man bench,
chaired by Deputy Chief Justice Ambeng Kandakasi, and consisting of Justice
David Cannings, Justice Derek Hartshorn, Justice Bena Cohlier and Justice Ere
Kariko, made the ruling yesterday (Oct 24, 2022).
The National reported the court proceedings:
O’Neill case to
proceed
October 25, 2022The
NationalMain Stories
THE Supreme Court has
ruled that Ialibu-Pangia MP Peter O’Neill has standing to pursue a case which
questions the legality of the 11th Parliament’s maiden sitting on Aug 9.
A five-man bench, chaired by Deputy Chief Justice Ambeng Kandakasi, and
consisting of Justice David Cannings, Justice Derek Hartshorn, Justice Berna
Cohlier and Justice Ere Kariko, made the ruling yesterday.
O’Neill had sought the court’s interpretation on whether:
- THE election was deemed to have
failed if, according to Section 97 (2) of the Organic Law on National and
Local Level Government Elections, no candidate was declared by Aug 5;
- THE Electoral Commissioner (EC)
had the power under the Organic Law and elsewhere to extend the deadline
of the return of writs beyond Aug 5; and,
- THE EC was in breach of Section
50 of the Constitution by extending the date for the return of writs.
O’Neill’s lawyer Greg Sheppard argued that
there was a conflict between section 63 of the Organic Law on the Integrity of
Political Parties and Candidates (OLIPAC), and section 50 of the Constitution.
He also argued that the notice for the time of Parliament sitting was published
before the date of the return of writs, therefore it was inconsistent with the
Constitution.
Sheppard said O’Neill should be granted standing to bring this application
filed under section 18 (1) of the Constitution because he was a citizen who had
genuine concern for the subject matter of the application and had a duty as a
concerned citizen to challenge any act, whether legislative, executive or
judicial that was inconsistent with the Constitution, he was also an MP.
Sheppard further added that O’Neill’s application had raised significant
constitutional issues.
The interveners in this case are the People’s National Congress (PNC) party, Attorney-General
(AG), Pangu Pati and Speaker Job Pomat.
The Attorney-General was represented by Solicitor-General Tauvasa Tanuvasa and
assisted by E’ava Geita, PNC was represented by David Dotaona, Pangu Pati was
represented by Simon Dewe and Pomat was represented by Steven Ranewa.
Dotaona supported Sheppard that O’Neill had standing to bring this application.
Tanuvasa, however, argued that there were no significant constitutional issues
raised hence O’Neill should not be granted standing.
Ranewa and Dewe agreed with Tanuvasa that there were no serious constitutional
issues raised however the court was of the view that there was an arguable case
that could be properly argued in the substantive application.
The court also ordered the Attorney-General, Pangu Pati and Speaker to pay
cost for O’Neill and the PNC party.
Comments
Post a Comment