The sacking of PNGSDP Chairman, Sir Mekere Morauta, is but just one of a number of decisions where the government, using its parliament majority and legislative privileges, ward off any opposing person. While it is claimed that their action is to protect the interest of the people, or stabilize the government, the manner and motif surrounding these decisions cannot go unquestioned.
In 2012, when the Supreme Court ruled against the O'Neil-Namah government, the Judicial Conduct Act was immediately passed. The Act can be interpreted as one that elevates the Legislative arm above the Judiciary, giving the former powers to discipline the later, disregarding their constitutional equality (click this link for detailed explanation). Furthermore, the Act nullified the Supreme Court decision that reinstated Sir Michael as the legitimate PM.
The agenda: nullify the Supreme court decision so the O'Neil-Namah government can reman in power.
Governor General Sir Michael Ogio, honoring the Supreme Court decision, swore in the Somare-Abel government, only to be told by parliament that he has been suspended.
The agenda: remove the Governor General and replace him with someone who is in support of the O'Neil-Namah government as legitimate. In this case, speaker Jeffery Nape replacing the GG, swore in O'Neil as PM.
Parliament then amended the Prime Minister and NEC Act, which set an age limit for any serving Prime Minister to 73. Since Sir Michael was 76, this effectively means that he can no longer become a prime minister again.
The agenda: prevent Sir. Michael, a huge threat to the O'Neil government, from becoming Prime Minister.
Electoral Commissioner Andrew Trawen, when adamant to issue the writs on time (which the O'Neil-Namah government didn't like), faced a threat of being suspended. His appointment was investigated and his retirement age was questioned.
The agenda: since Trawen is not supportive of the governments decisions, find a reason to suspend him to remove the obstacle.
In all these government decisions, a common factor stands out: parliament (especially NEC) used its powers and numbers to ward off any impasse such that the progress favors their agendas. These becomes more clear with the fact that the concerned amendments were repealed late last year. In tabling the repeal, Attorney-General Kerenga Kua said the Judicial Conduct Act and the Supreme Court Act of 2012 had outlived their use. So were these Acts used just to ensure that O'Neil stayed in power?
O'Neill says that his coalition government repealed these controversial laws to correct the wrongs of the recent past. So these concerned laws were wrong, and O'Neil sanctioned them anyway?
I see a government that can use its majority parliamentary numbers and their legislative powers to clear any opposition to their course or agenda: a government that passes Acts overnight to nullify any court decisions against them: one that suspends anyone who is not in the boat with them: one that ward off opposition to their decisions using their powers rather than an around-the-table discussions.
Well, the people have spoken . But the voice doesn't sound like the people's voice.
