Political review: Vanuatu 2001
By Anita Jowitt [authors draft]
Subsequently published in Contemporary Pacific , Fall 2002
Government at the
beginning of the year was a coalition headed by Barak Sope, of the Melanesian
Progressive Party. The other main partners in this coalition were the Union of
Moderate Parties, the National United Party and the Vanuatu Republican Party.
This Government had come to power in November of 1999, when the then Prime
Minister, Donald Kalpokas of the Vanua’aku Party, resigned in order to avoid a
no confidence motion.
Dissatisfaction with
the Sope led Government had been growing, due in large part to its dealings
with Amarendra Nand Ghosh. Ghosh, a Thai businessman,
came to attention in April of 2000. It was around this time that, soon after
giving the Vanuatu Government 10 million vatu for disaster relief, he was
appointed Honorary Consul to
In March
of 2001 dealings between Ghosh and the Vanuatu Government took a further
strange turn when it was revealed that the Government had signed an agreement
with Ghosh that apparently would give him bank guarantees worth US$10 million
over a period of 10 years. As a further part of this agreement a
Another factor that
contributed to the vote of no confidence was the deportation of Marc Neil
Jones, publisher of the Trading Post newspaper, on
Soon after the bank
guarantees agreement was signed the Union of Moderate Parties left the coalition
Government and joined the Opposition, led by Edward Natapei of the Vanua’aku
Party. The Opposition, now having a majority in Parliament, submitted notice of
a motion of no confidence in Prime Minister Sope to the Speaker, Paul Ren Tari, on 26 March. The Speaker ruled that this notice
was in order and placed it on the agenda to be debated on Tuesday 3 April as
part of the First Ordinary Session of Parliament.
On 27 March the Government withdrew all
Government Bills intended for debate during the session. Sope then announced
that the Council of Ministers, which had met earlier in the day, had resolved
to advise the President of the
The
President, Father John Bani, declined to dissolve
Parliament as the motivation for doing so was to avoid voting on the motion of
no confidence. Parliament therefore re-convened
for normal business on March 28. Despite his earlier statement, Sope did not
resign as Prime Minister. As there were no written questions before Parliament
the Speaker adjourned the sitting to
Following
the submission of the vote of no confidence there were reports alleging that
agents of Dinh van Than, President of the National
United Party, approached various opposition members of Parliament, attempting
to bribe them to return to the Government. Stories that opposition members of
Parliament were being harassed by groups of people, apparently on orders from various
Government supporters, also circulated. (TP,
When
Parliament reconvened on
That day
the Opposition took two actions. First they
filed in the Supreme Court on the ground that the Speaker’s actions in closing
the First Session of Parliament were unconstitutional. They also filed a second
motion of no confidence with the Clerk of Parliament and summonsed the Speaker
to call an extraordinary session of Parliament to debate this second motion.
On 6 April
Chief Justice Lunabeck ruled that the closure of
Parliament was in breach of Article 43(2) of the Constitution, which gives
members of Parliament a constitutional right to debate motions of no
confidence, provided the correct procedures are followed. The typing errors or
incorrect references were not sufficient grounds to prevent debate on the
motion, particularly as it had been accepted for debate by the Speaker on 26
March. The court ordered that the Speaker reconvene Parliament forthwith in
order to allow debate on the motion. (Natapei
& Ors v
Tari No. 1 C.C.# 35 2001) During this hearing the irregularities in the
motion were rectified in Court by the Court. After this court ruling, which
upheld the continued validity of the first motion of no confidence,
the second motion became largely irrelevant and no longer had any importance in
the political wrangling.
At
The next
stage in the drama occurred on 11 April when the Opposition applied to the Supreme
Court for an order commanding the Speaker to summon Parliament to meet at
Parliament
was not convened and on 13th April contempt proceedings were
commenced. During these proceedings the Speaker apologised for disobeying the
Court orders and undertook to reconvene Parliament at
As a
further delaying tactic it appears that Sope approached the Acting Commissioner
of Police seeking to declare a state of emergency, although nothing came of
this action. (PIR,
With the vote of no confidence finally settled, the
First Ordinary Session of Parliament of 2001 came to an end, although this was
not to mark the end of parliamentary turmoil. The Speaker, still Mr Paul Ren Tari, summoned Parliament to meet in the First
Extraordinary Session of 2001 on 3rd May, to debate various
Government bills and motions. On the
morning of 3rd May no Opposition members of Parliament attended,
preventing a quorum from being formed. That afternoon the boycott continued,
with only 4 Opposition members of Parliament attending. As a result Parliament
was adjourned until 7 May. On 7 May there was full attendance in Parliament. Following
opening formalities the Speaker proceeded to suspend six Government members of
Parliament, including Prime Minister Edward Natapei and Deputy Prime Minister
Serge Vohor. The Speaker’s stated reason for the suspension was that the
earlier petitions to the Supreme Court were breaches of the Standing Orders of
Parliament. At no time were the six given an opportunity to speak or question
points of order. The six suspended members of Parliament then left, along with the
other Government members of Parliament. They almost immediately filed a
Constitutional petition with the Supreme Court. Meanwhile in Parliament, after
a brief adjournment the Speaker closed the first Extraordinary Session,
although less than half of the members were present. This raised a further
legal issue of whether the session could be closed when Parliament was
inquorate.
On 8 May, at the request of the Speaker, the Clerk of
Parliament issued notice of the Second Extraordinary Session for 2001. Included
on this agenda were a motion of no confidence in Prime Minister Natapei and a
motion to suspend all 27 Government members of Parliament from three
Extraordinary Sessions of Parliament and Two Ordinary Sessions of Parliament.
Meanwhile the Supreme Court commenced the hearing on the validity of the
suspension of the members of Parliament and associated matters. On 12 May the
Court ruled that the suspension was invalid as it prevented the six suspended
members from legitimately exercising their lawful duties and responsibilities
as members of Parliament. Additionally their having being given no opportunity
to speak infringed various constitutionally enshrined human rights. The closure
of the First Extraordinary Session of Parliament was also ruled to be invalid,
as Parliament was inquorate and various other Constitutional provisions were
also breached. Chief Justice Lunabeck further ordered
the Speaker to reconvene Parliament on the morning of 14 May to continue the
First Extraordinary Session. (Natapei
& Ors v Tari & Ors (Reasons for Judgment) C.C.#
59 2001; Natapei & Ors v Tari &
Ors (Orders) C.C.# 59 2001)
The Speaker, however, chose to ignore this order, and
signed a statement to this effect. Early on Tuesday morning, 15 May, he was
arrested and charged with making a seditious statement. Irene Bongnaim, the first Deputy Speaker, and Henry Iauko, the second Deputy Speaker, were also arrested and
charged with complicity in making a seditious statement. Parliament sat that
day, but only after a worker broke into the Parliament building, as Paul Ren Tari refused to release the keys. At this meeting Tari
was relieved of the position of Speaker and former Prime Minister Donald
Kalpokas voted in in his place. This left the Government with 26 members, as
compared to the Opposition, with 25 members. (TP, 16 May 2001) Whilst
there were some doubts whether the Government could survive with such a slim
majority, and Sope has, on occasion, discussed the tabling of a no confidence
motion (TP,
Various legal issues and challenges from these events
continued throughout the year, although they ultimately had little impact on
the Government. The sedition charges were finally quashed by the Supreme Court
in November because of a legal technicality. Article 27(2) of the Constitution
prevents any member of Parliament from being arrested
or prosecuted during a session. As the Supreme Court had ruled that the closure
of the First Extraordinary Session of Parliament on 7 May was invalid and of no
effect, Parliament was in session at the time of the arrest and it was
therefore unconstitutional. (TP,
On of the first acts of the new Government was to
sever relations with Ghosh. His diplomatic titles were cancelled and he was
requested to surrender his diplomatic passport and the four passports issued to
staff members at his office in
The remainder of the year has been fairly quiet,
although there have been some incidents of note. More prisoners were released
as part of Independence celebrations, despite public outcries over the practice
following an incident last year when a released prisoner was responsible for
the killing of a man. (TP,
It has also
been good to note that dishonest behaviour amongst politicians and within the
public service is beginning to result in criminal prosecutions. In the middle
of the year the Deputy Principal Immigration Officer, John Wai,
was found guilty of accepting a bribe in respect of processing residency forms.
He was jailed for the offence for 3 months. (TP,
Finally, the Ombudsman has been permitted to continue
an action commenced in 1997 to recover ex gratia
payments and compensation payments made to various politicians in 1993 and
1994. (Korman v The Ombudsman Civ.
App. # 23 2001) This proceeding was started by the previous Ombudsman under the
authority of the Ombudsman’s Act 1995, which gave the Ombudsman limited rights
of enforcement in court if the recommendations contained in public reports were
ignored. The hearings were originally interrupted
as there were attempts to get the Ombudsman’s Act 1995 repealed and various
other attacks on the Ombudsman of the time. Eventually the 1995 Act was
repealed and the new Act, which commenced in 1999, does not give the Ombudsman
any powers of enforcement. This action is therefore an anachronism, but is
nonetheless welcome as an attempt to make
References
Jones, Marc Neil 2002. Personal communication 1 Feb.
Natapei & Ors v Tari No. 1 Unreported,
Supreme Court of Vanuatu, C.C.# 35 2001,
Natapei & Ors v
Tari No 2 Unreported, Supreme Court of Vanuatu, C.C.# 35 2001,
Natapei & Ors v
Tari Unreported, Supreme Court of Vanuatu, C.C. # 49 2001,
Natapei & Ors v
Tari & Ors (Orders) Unreported, Supreme Court of Vanuatu, C.C.# 59 2001,
Natapei & Ors v
Tari & Ors (Reasons for Judgment) Unreported, Supreme
Court of Vanuatu, C.C.# 59 2001,
PIR,
Tari & Ors v
Natapei & Ors Unreported, Court of Appeal of
TP, The Trading Post. Port