The Supreme Court Judgment handed down yesterday afternoon concerning the Constitutional Application filed by the Opposition ruled that the decision of the Speaker of Parliament to rule out the motion of no confidence against the Prime Minister Sato Kilman was invalid.
In a packed court room full of political supporters from both the Government and Opposition, Justice Dudley Aru, granted the 3 main redress sought by the applicants.
Justice Aru declared that the Parliament was still open for business on June 16 when the Speaker, Marcelino Pipite, made the decision to close the First Ordinary Session of 2015.
Hence he made the second declaration which he said the Speaker's action to close the Parliament was unlawful.
The third declaration by the court was that the Speaker's decision to close Parliament was in breach of the constitutional rights of the Applicants enshrined under the Articles 6(1), (2), 43 (2) and 53 (10), (20) of the Constitution.
After the declaration the Supreme Court Jude ordered that the Speaker of Parliament reconvene the Parliament on June 30 which is Tuesday next week in order to debate the motion of no confidence filed against the Prime Minister, Sato Kilman.
The motion was lodged by the Opposition earlier this month and was declared in order by the former Speaker, Philip Boeboro, before he was ousted by a Government-sponsored motion.
When Speaker Pipite took over he declared that the opposition sponsored motion of no confidence was not in order and unconstitutional.
After declaring that the motion was not in order and unconstitutional he closed the First Ordinary Session of Parliament.
When defending the Speaker's decision to close the Parliament and his declaration that the motion was not in order, defense counsel, Robin Kapapa argued that the motion does not meet the requirements of at least 1 weeks' notice before it can be debated. Therefore the motion was not valid saying the Constitutional rights of the applicants was also not breached.
But according to Ronald Warsal who acts for the Applicant, even if the Speaker found that the motion was not in order he should have waited until the 18th when the motion was expected to be debated for the parliament to have its say since the former speaker already had it listed.
A number of past Supreme Court judgments were cited by Counsel Warsal which were considered by the judge to issue the judgment in favour of the Opposition.