BY MELVILLE TITIULU
The Court of Appeal yesterday heard oral submissions and dealt with written submissions by both parties into the appeal by the Attorney General against a High Court decision that favoured the opposition Coalition and ordered Parliament to be convened so a Motion of No Confidence could be debated.
The matter will resume today at 10am for the appellants, Attorney General John Muria Jnr and Wilson Rano to make their responses and reply to the respondent’s submissions.
The Court of Appeal Justices – Chief Justice Sir Gibuma Gibbs Salika, Howard Lowry, and Gina Nott presided over the hearing yesterday.
The Attorney General John Muria Jnr who represents the Governor General and the Prime Minister told the Court that the appeal raises fundamental limits of jurisdictional power.
Mr Muria submits that the High Court assumed jurisdiction where none existed and had granted relief where it had no power. Thus, they seek to have the appeal allowed and the judgement of the High Court be set aside in its entirety with cost.
Justice Howard Lowry reminded the Attorney General that the claimants are pleading constitutional breach in executive power where if not exercised infringed the right of parliament.
Chief Justice Sir Gibuma Gibbs Salika asked the Attorney General the question relating to the three arms of government – as to who is the head of the Legislature, the Executive and Judiciary.
Mr Muria confirmed it is the speaker of parliament being the head of the legislature, and the Prime Minister being the head of the executive.
Chief Justice Sir Salika however, in response told the AG that from what he had heard from his submissions, it appears that the head of executive is the head of the legislature as well.
Justice Howard Lowry told parties that the executive is undermining the right of Members of Parliament as that can be an ‘’extreme breach of constitution’’.
Justice Lowry said when parliament cannot meet, the house of representation is frustrated amounting to an ‘’executive overreach.’’
The Attorney General responded by saying, whatever happens in parliament is in the territory of Parliament.
Justice Lowry made it clear to the Attorney General that they (Respondents) cannot get there unless parliament is to meet to debate the motion of no confidence on the floor of parliament so the community knows.
The Attorney General responded by saying that the respondent’s rights are not infringed. He said, the “PM never refused to call Parliament’’ suggesting that parliament will be called at the relevant time.
Justice Mrs Gina Nott put forward to the AG if he accepts that a breach could happened by “inactivity’’ to which the AG said, section 34 of the constitution does not create a duty. It does place restriction to bring Motion of no Confidence (MONC) within a clear 7 days.
Mr Muria said the High Court converted duty into obligation, interfering into parliamentary process. Suggesting that power is not same as duty- for duty compels an action.
Ms Gina Nott then asked what work does S34 has if parliament is not called thus, S34 is rendered ineffective.
Mr Gabriel Suri said the omission to notify date to convene is like “laying on a soft pillow comfortably without action’’. Thus, he submits amounts to ‘unlawful’ and ‘unreasonable’ use of power.
Given the public interest and urgency of the matter, the Court of Appeal has indicated yesterday a tentative target of Friday, April 24, to deliver judgment.
The appellants are the Governor General, the Prime Minister, the Speaker of National Parliament and the Attorney General (AG).
Mr Wilson Rano represents the Speaker of National Parliament of Solomon Islands.
For feedback, contact: [email protected]
Editor: [email protected]
