Picture of parliament leaders. Copyright Jason Wuri.
By Samantha Solomon
The Supreme Court of Papua New Guinea has reserved its decision on the substantive matter concerning the Vote of No Confidence case, involving key political figures and legal arguments. The case, which has garnered significant attention due to its potential impact on the country’s political landscape, will see its fate decided by a five-man Supreme Court bench.
The Supreme Court bench is comprised of Chief Justice Sir Gibbs Salika, Justice Les Gavera Nanu, Justice David Canning, Justice Panuel Mogish, and Justice Derek Hartshorn.
During the proceedings, lawyers representing the Speaker and Attorney General raised objections regarding the competency of the substantive application. They contended that the application was procedurally flawed, citing multiple grounds for their objection. In response, the opposition’s legal team argued that the objections were not only submitted beyond the permissible timeframe but also constituted an abuse of process, as the issues raised were similar to those already addressed in previous submissions.
“The Chief Justice has made it clear that the decision should be expedited given the urgency of the case,” Tomuriesa said. “However, the Attorney General and the Speaker’s lawyers opted to file an amended application on competency. Despite the delay, we respect the court’s decision and await the outcome so that we can proceed to the substantive matter.”
Tomuriesa emphasized the importance of resolving the issue swiftly for the benefit of the public and the media, who have been closely following the case.
On the other hand, Attorney General and Justice Minister Pila Niningi defended his team’s position, asserting that the objections were valid and the opposition’s application was flawed. “We submitted that the application was incompetent, and we believe our submission was robust,” Niningi stated. “Members of Parliament have a constitutional duty that they failed to fulfill, and instead of addressing it within Parliament, they have sought court intervention.”
Niningi expressed confidence in his team’s arguments and awaits the court’s decision on whether to proceed further with the case.
The case revolves around a Vote of No Confidence brought forward by the opposition, challenging the legitimacy of certain parliamentary proceedings and decisions.
