Speaker Nape is above the Law

If I am seated at a round table to discuss certain topics of interest, politics is sure to take the last place on the list. I am not a fan of politics, especially PNG politics because it’s mingled with corruption. But I’d like to say and share my views.

   Sir Michael was happy when doctors discharged him from hospital in Singapore, but certainly not when Nape discharged him from parliament on September 6. He was able to leave the hospital bed and sit on his seat at home, but there is no longer a seat for him in parliament as of 4 pm, September 6.

   Now, that is not the kind of parliamentary welcome you would want to give the ‘founding father’ of the nation, or the longest serving politician, and especially when he hasn’t fully recovered from his illness.

   I am not his examining doctor to say that he has not fully recovered, but I think he hasn’t. He walked out of the country but was wheel-chaired in. Obviously other important agendas were on his mind, ones that surpass his health in their importance.

   When sacking Sir Michael, Nape also declared the East Sepik regional seat vacant. Since 1968, the people of East Sepik have decided to let only one MP in the person of Sir Michael to occupy that seat. Now that it is vacant, I understand that Sir Michael is no longer a member of parliament, and will remain thus until the next general election, or a by-election if seemed appropriate by the Electoral Commission.

   Obviously it is shocking to MPs and citizens who have great respect for Sir Michael. What is shocking to me is that Mr. Nape stated it clearly that his actions are ‘non-justiceable, that is, they could not be challenged in a court of law.’ (The National, September 7). You don’t have to be a genius to know that if an action is non-justiceable, then the actor is above the law. It seems to me that the office of the Speaker of Parliament is above the law, in certain parliamentary matters.

   Legal contradictions are never absent in courts. That is why we have prosecuting lawyers and defending lawyers in any court case. One lawyer thinks he is right, and advises his clients as thus, sometimes contradicting the ‘right’ views of the other lawyer. Sir Michael’s lawyers advised him differently and contradictorily to that given to Nape by his lawyers.

   Persuant to the requirement of Section 104(2) d) of the Constitution, Sir Michael will be automatically disqualified as MP for East Sepik regional seat if he misses the September 6 session, because he would have missed three consecutive meetings of parliament, the others being June and August sessions.

   He did miss the May 2011 session, but is understood as one granted a leave by parliament for it.

   However, the Speaker disregarded the granted leave, giving his reason that the absences were ‘without excuse.’ That means that Sir Michael had already missed three consecutive parliamentary meetings (May, June and August 2011), hence his disqualification despite his attempt to prevent that by attending the September 6 session.

   If being sick, and undergoing three different heart operations, is not a good excuse to miss parliament sessions, then what is? Unless Sir Michael has other undisclosed intent for his absence, Nape’s reason as ‘without excuse’ is too shallow and without weight. Whether he was officially notified or not about Sir Michael’s absence, I don’t wish to know. What I know is that Sir Michael was absent because he was sick.

   Rumours had it that when Polye and Duma were removed of their portfolios this year by Abal, the two men teamed up with the opposition and confronted the speaker. They asked him to declare a vacancy in the PM’s seat and accept the opposition’s move to nominate a new PM.

   But Nape gave them conditions that he would comply only if Namah or O’Neill is nominated. Polye and Duma were not to be candidates for PM. Nape saw Polye and Duma as a threat to his role a speaker.  When they agreed to his terms, he easily facilitated the removal of the NA led government. As long as he remains speaker of parliament, he will allow through his powers only the government that is compatible with his position.

   This is an un-researched, undocumented rumour I grabbed from the streets so don’t believe it. But if it is true, then Nape is corrupt, and they must have paid him a lot facilitate corruption!

   A Simbu lad said that Nape is a ‘Sanguma’ from Sinesine-Yongomugl. He has the voice that can sack the founding father of the nation, while pronouncing his act as ‘unjusticeable’. If no one can challenge him in a court of law, he is, in subtle practicability, a dictator decorated with democracy – a ‘democraciated’ dictator!