By Brian Kramer
PNG NEWS, Facebook (6th Sept, 2015: 02: 45pm)
PNG NEWS, Facebook (6th Sept, 2015: 02: 45pm)
Full bench (5 Judges) of the Supreme Court chaired by the Chief Justice Salamo Injia has upheld former Ombudsman Commission Ila Geno and former Opposition Leader Belden Namah applications challenging the O’Neill Government’s amendments to Section 145 of Constitution relating to a motion of no confidence.
Section 145 of the Constitution provides Parliament the power to move a motion of no confidence to remove the Prime Minister; his entire Cabinet (Ministers) or any individual Government Minister. The provision or section sets out the strict procedure or criteria to invoke these powers; which includes the grace period to which a motion of no confidence is prohibited (restricted), notice period required and number of MP’s needed to endorse or sign the notice of motion before Parliament can consider it.
Before reporting the specific findings of the Supreme Court ruling I thought it appropriate to first provide some background context and history to help understand the issues behind the ruing.
A “motion” is a formal proposal or recommendation made during formal meetings. Any member may move (table) a motion during meetings. The purpose of moving a motion is to seek the majority approval of the other members to formally adopt or approve it.
Most motions may be moved verbally from the floor while important or special motions must be by formal notice. Before a motion can be considered or voted on it requires another member to second or endorse it.
Section 145 of the Constitution provides Parliament the power to move a motion of no confidence to remove the Prime Minister; his entire Cabinet (Ministers) or any individual Government Minister. The provision or section sets out the strict procedure or criteria to invoke these powers; which includes the grace period to which a motion of no confidence is prohibited (restricted), notice period required and number of MP’s needed to endorse or sign the notice of motion before Parliament can consider it.
Before reporting the specific findings of the Supreme Court ruling I thought it appropriate to first provide some background context and history to help understand the issues behind the ruing.
A “motion” is a formal proposal or recommendation made during formal meetings. Any member may move (table) a motion during meetings. The purpose of moving a motion is to seek the majority approval of the other members to formally adopt or approve it.
This practice is to ensure only genuine motions that have the support of the other members are considered. If a motion is moved by a member and without any other member to second it, it is struck down. Rules, practice and procedures of how meetings are conducted and motions moved are referred to as standing orders.
