Papua New Guinea’s Supreme Court has ruled that Parliament must be recalled on April 8 to debate a motion of no confidence against Prime Minister James Marape.

In a decision handed down yesterday, the court found that actions taken by the Parliament’s Private Business Committee and Deputy Speaker, Koni Iguan, in November 2024 were unconstitutional and in breach of the principle of parliamentary democracy.

The ruling stems from an incident on 27 November 2024, when a notice of motion for a vote of no confidence was submitted to Iguan and found compliant with constitutional requirements under Section 145.

However, the motion was rejected by invoking Section 165 of the Standing Orders, which disallows motions deemed identical in substance to those resolved within the previous 12 months.

This restriction came into play just over two months after an earlier motion of no confidence had been defeated on 12 September.

Iguan disallowed the motion and prevented it from being tabled in Parliament, triggering legal action from Chuave MP and deputy opposition leader James Nomane.

The court emphasised that parliamentary democracy relies on the executive’s accountability to the people through such mechanisms as motions of no confidence.

Overstepped mandate
The court also found that the Private Business Committee had overstepped its mandate, taking actions that should have been handled by the Speaker or Parliament as a whole.

Marape has responded to the decision, saying his government will respect the rule of law and comply with the court’s directives.

“We are a government that respects the courts. The Supreme Court reads and interprets the Constitution better than all of us, and we will honour its ruling,” he said.

Marape commands the support of more than two-thirds of the MPs in the house which enabled him to pass several major consitutional amendments last month, including declaring Papua New Guinea a Christian nation.

He acknowledged the Supreme Court’s clarification of critical constitutional provisions which pertain to the right of MPs to introduce motions and participate in the democratic processes of government.

“The court found that there was a vacuum in the law and has provided direction,” he said.

“As the executive arm of government, we will not stand in the way. Parliament will sit as ordered by the court.”

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz