By NEMO YALO
THE O’Neill Government proposes to further amend the Constitution Sections 142 and 145. Section 142 relates to the establishment of the office of, appointment, suspension and dismissal of the Prime Minister.
Section 145 relates to motion of no confidence in the Prime Minister or his Ministry.
Section 142(5) stipulates three grounds of dismissal of a Prime Minister.
It reads: “The Prime Minister – (a) shall be dismissed by Head of State…” through a motion of no confidence; (b) dismissed under the Leadership Code; and (c) removed from office on medical grounds.
The O’Neill Government has proposed a fourth ground which reads: “(d) shall be removed from office if he has held the office of the Prime intermittently for 15 years”.
The word ‘intermittent’ is an adjective which means discontinuous, breaks or interruptions.
The proposed amendment is vague and confusing.
Does it mean that a Member of Parliament (MP) who has occupied the Office of the Prime Minister intermittently for 15 years is disqualified from holding that office?
Or does it mean that any MP who has occupied the office of the Prime Minister intermittently for 14 years and upon reaching the 15th year “shall be removed from office”?
The latter proposition begs the question, “Who removes the Prime Minister?”
It is unclear. In any case the intention of this proposed law is clear.
For the present time it is intended to remove the chance of any of the former Prime Ministers (Sir Michael, Sir Julius and Wingti) from the office of the Prime Minister should they ever occupy that office again.
So is O’Neill hearing any proposed names of a Prime Minister should a successful motion of no confidence be brought whenever the 30 months grace period is up in 2015?
For future purposes, at least for the next 13 years, O’Neill will ensure that he clings onto power
in the office of the Prime Minister to ensure that there is no break
or interruption of his occupation of the office to avoid him being removed from office by operation of his proposed law should it be passed.
The proposed further amendment to Section 145(5) is aimed at making motions of no confidence much tougher. The Constitution initially stated that a motion of no confidence in the Prime Minister of his Ministers required not less than one week’s notice supported by one tenth of seats in Parliament (i.e. 11/111).
In 2013 the provision was amended to increase the notice period to one month and also increased
the support of the motion by 21 MPs.
This time, the proposal is to further amend the same law to increase the period of notice to “not less than three months” and further increase the support of the motion by one-third of seats (i.e. 37 out of 111 seats or 37 MPs out of 111).
The Government has further proposed amendment to Section 145(5) and says: “Where a Prime Minister is removed in a vote of no-confidence … a person from the party invited to form Government after a national election shall
be elected as the next Prime Minister”.
The proposed Section 145(1)(b) is intended to make it difficult for the Peoples’ Parliament to keep Mr O’Neill accountable in light of all the
Flip the same coin over and one will see a glaring fact that he is adamant to be the Prime Minister for life so much so that he is willing to tamper with the Constitution and continue to use the Parliament as a rubber stamp to pull off a political coup de ’tat on the Constitution without any moral and ethical sense of duty and care to the People’s Constitution.
The proposed Section 145(5) adds to and bolsters his chances of becoming the Prime Minster for the life of him.
What is subtle in this proposed law but is obvious to the learned eye is that should O’Neill be successfully removed from office through a successful motion of no-confidence, he is immediately and re-elected entitled to be nominated the Prime Minister because it is his political party that was invited to form the government in 2012 following the general election and he has the numbers on the floor.
So he intends to ensure that keeping him accountable through a successful motion of no-confidence is a futile exercise.
This is further proof that O’Neill intends to cling onto the office as if the other 110 MPs or any other citizen has no constitutional right to that office or as if they are
of a class not recognized by the Constitution or not fit to hold that office.
It is up to the MPs to give up their own chances; their constitutional rights of becoming the Prime Minister one day and entrench Mr O’Neill to be the Prime Minister for life by passing the proposed amendments.
And every citizen owes it to the nation to speak out or forever hold your breath and accept tyranny to replace democracy.
Finally, whilst O’Neill claims through the media that the amendments have been proposed by the Registrar of Political Parties, it is hard to comprehend that such an independent Constitutional Office-holder will propose such amendments that sanction one person to the Prime Minister for life and potentially sanctions tyrannical and dictatorial government.
If the current MPs cannot save the Constitution this time around, only God will save this nation.
Nemo Yalo is a former acting judge of the National and Supreme Court
MADFOX NIUS 