A full Supreme Court bench comprising five judges have concluded hearing a Supreme Court reference filed by Ialibu Pangia MP Peter O'Neill at 5.20pm yesterday
The bench comprising Chief Justice Sir Gibbs Salika, his deputy Ambeng Kandakasi and other judges Ereke Kariko, Panuel Mogish and David Cannings have reserved their ruling to a later date.
In this supreme court reference Mr O'Neill was asking the high court to provide a legal opinion on whether the election of Prime Minister James Marape on August 9 last year was proper and constitutional.
One of the main issues raised before the five judges was whether a gazettal notice of meeting of Parliament published on August 1st, 2022 was proper.
Through his lawyer Ron Webb Mr O'Neill also asked the court to declare section 63 of the OLIPAC law unconstitutional as it does not support section 50 which allows citizens to take part in an election.
This argument particularly concerns the non participation of other MPs whose writs were not returned yet and ultimate denying them the constitutional right to vote for a Prime Minister or be nominated to contest.
The argument was that only 83 writs out of 119 were returned when Parliament was called.
The high court will have to offer an opinion whether having 83 writs was sufficient to call a meeting of Parliament and elect a Prime Minister.
Mr O'Neill through his lawyer Ron Webb while asking the high court to declare section 63 of the OLIPAC unconstitutional has prompted the Supreme Court bench to ask O'Neills lawyer whether his client had benefited from this OLIPAC law in the previous elections
O'Neill's lawyer said this supreme court reference was about what happened in this parliament and not in previous ones.
The Peoples National Congress Party through lawyer Davis Steven endorsed Peter ONeills arguments adding they were concerned about the processes leading to the first sitting of Parliament being unconstitutional.
Lawyer for the Attorney General Levente Jurth had a strong contention against Peter O'Neills application.
Other five intervenors endorsed the arguments by the Attorney General's lawyer.
Among interesting opposing arguments were that Mr O'Neills application through section 18 was not of personal interest concerning Constitutional matters and he failed to plead how he was directly affected in anyway.
He should have files through sect 19 because the issues were of public interest, but then only constitutional office holders can use sect 19.
The Attorney General's lawyer also argued that Mr O'Neill did not clearly plead how he has suffered personally in any way and reliefs he was after were not stated .
The bench had prior inquired why Mr O'Meill did not indicate reliefs sought in the application book.
The bench said it was fundamental.
They only heard O'Neills lawyer asked the court for reliefs during submissions yesterday.
The Attorney General's lawyer had asked the court not to entertain O'Neills application.
Peter O’Neill’s lawyer Ron Web says his client has sufficient interest in the constitutional matters.
The Supreme Court bench has reserved its ruling to a later date.
No comments:
Post a Comment