K10,000 Nominaion Fee for Elections
Interestingly the Court ruled that the Supreme Court does have the power to intervene when a proposed law is still being discussed by Parliament. In this case the Court decided the evidence was not sufficient for the Court to intervene.More on (http://www.thenational.com.pg/proposed-bills-given-nod/)
TWO proposed laws to increase fees for nomination and election petitions will go ahead in Parliament unimpeded, according to the Supreme Court.
The proposed bills are the K10,000 (from K1000) nomination fee and the cost of lodging an election petition of K20,000 (from K5000).
Chief Justice Sir Salamo Injia, Deputy Chief Justice Sir Gibbs Salika and Justice Colin Makail in a unanimous decision on Friday said the third and final reading should be allowed to reach its logical conclusion.
“We are not satisfied that this court should intervene and halt the Parliamentary proceedings that are being conducted on the proposed constitutional laws by way of an interim order,” they said in their judgment.
The court said the balance of convenience and maintenance of status quo favoured the refusal of the stay application sought by the Ombudsman Commission.
The court said the commission would not suffer any prejudice for the court to refuse the stay application.
“The constitutional amendment bill may not pass the third reading and may not become law,” it said.
“If the proposed law is passed, the third reading and the amendments become law, there is still opportunity for the referrer to argue the substantive reference and obtain an expedited hearing and decision from the court before the writs for the general election are issued on April 20.” In the judgement, the court said: “Our findings in favour of the intervener (Prime Minister Peter O’Neill) on the other factors weigh heavily in tilting the balance in favour of refusing the application.”
The two factors that the court weighed in favour of O’Neill were the balance of convenience and the preservation of the status quo.
But the court ruled that it had the jurisdiction to intervene at any stage of the Parliamentary proceedings on the proposed laws.
The court, however, refused to grant the stay because it was not satisfied that it should intervene and stop the parliamentary proceedings.
In the reference, the commission was seeking an opinion of the court on the constitutional validity of two proposed laws in the form of bills to amend Section 103 (2) of the Constitution and Section 87 and Section 209 of the Organic Law on National and Local Level Government Elections.
The bills have gone past two of the three readings required to pass the Constitutional amendments and are awaiting the final reading which will take place in the last sitting of this term of Parliament this month.
Pending the determination of that reference, the commission applied for an interim relief to stop deliberations by Parliament.
Parties return to court on March 13 for directions hearing.
Proposed bills given nod
By CHARLES MOITWO proposed laws to increase fees for nomination and election petitions will go ahead in Parliament unimpeded, according to the Supreme Court.
The proposed bills are the K10,000 (from K1000) nomination fee and the cost of lodging an election petition of K20,000 (from K5000).
Chief Justice Sir Salamo Injia, Deputy Chief Justice Sir Gibbs Salika and Justice Colin Makail in a unanimous decision on Friday said the third and final reading should be allowed to reach its logical conclusion.
“We are not satisfied that this court should intervene and halt the Parliamentary proceedings that are being conducted on the proposed constitutional laws by way of an interim order,” they said in their judgment.
The court said the balance of convenience and maintenance of status quo favoured the refusal of the stay application sought by the Ombudsman Commission.
The court said the commission would not suffer any prejudice for the court to refuse the stay application.
“The constitutional amendment bill may not pass the third reading and may not become law,” it said.
“If the proposed law is passed, the third reading and the amendments become law, there is still opportunity for the referrer to argue the substantive reference and obtain an expedited hearing and decision from the court before the writs for the general election are issued on April 20.” In the judgement, the court said: “Our findings in favour of the intervener (Prime Minister Peter O’Neill) on the other factors weigh heavily in tilting the balance in favour of refusing the application.”
The two factors that the court weighed in favour of O’Neill were the balance of convenience and the preservation of the status quo.
But the court ruled that it had the jurisdiction to intervene at any stage of the Parliamentary proceedings on the proposed laws.
The court, however, refused to grant the stay because it was not satisfied that it should intervene and stop the parliamentary proceedings.
In the reference, the commission was seeking an opinion of the court on the constitutional validity of two proposed laws in the form of bills to amend Section 103 (2) of the Constitution and Section 87 and Section 209 of the Organic Law on National and Local Level Government Elections.
The bills have gone past two of the three readings required to pass the Constitutional amendments and are awaiting the final reading which will take place in the last sitting of this term of Parliament this month.
Pending the determination of that reference, the commission applied for an interim relief to stop deliberations by Parliament.
Parties return to court on March 13 for directions hearing.
Comments
Post a Comment