The Supreme Court of Vanuatu has registered an urgent court application from the former Opposition, challenging the dissolution of Parliament.
The Opposition group, led by former Leader of Opposition Gracia Shadrack and 28 other former Members of Parliament (MPs), filed the application after preparing it since Monday. The court officially registered the case Thursday.
This legal action comes after President Nikenike Vurobaravu signed the instrument of dissolution on Monday afternoon. He exercised powers granted to him by subarticle 28(3) of the Constitution, and the dissolution was published in the extraordinary Gazette number 9 of 2024.
The former Opposition group is confident in their case, arguing that there may be a conflict of interest involving both the government side and the Head of State, who are facing motions that were declared in order earlier by the former Speaker of Parliament.
The constitutional case No. 3739 of 2024 is between the first applicants: Gracia Shadrack, Alatoi Ishmael Kalsakau, Silas Melve Bule, Jay Ngwele, Ulrich Sumptoh, Anatole Hymak, Jean Baptiste Tama, Marc Melsul, and Blaise Sumptoh. The second applicants are Samuel Andrew Kalpoilep, Jesse Luo, Anthony Harry, Nako Natuman, Gloria Julia King, Jack Wona, Lulu Sakaes, Justin Ngwele, Basil Buleban, Silas Bule, and Sato Kilman. The Third Applicants are Bob Loughman, Don Ken, Marc Ati, Camillo Ati, John Still Tari Qetu, Peter Tura, and James Bule.
The first respondent is Moli Nikenike Vurobaravu as the President of the Republic of Vanuatu, and the Second Respondent is Charlot Salwai in his capacity as the caretaker Prime Minister (PM).
The former Opposition’s challenge to the dissolution of Parliament centres on a claim of a conflict of interest and questions the President’s competence in making the decision.
They argue that the President should not have exercised his powers to dissolve Parliament while a motion of no confidence had already been submitted against both him and the then PM.
The former Opposition contends that, under these circumstances, the dissolution may have been improperly influenced by the political situation, which could undermine the legitimacy of the President’s decision.
Sources close to the Head of State have informed the Daily Post that the President’s legal counsel is fully prepared to defend his decision to dissolve Parliament. The President’s legal team is expected to argue that the dissolution was carried out within the bounds of his constitutional powers, as outlined in subarticle 28(3) of the Constitution.
As the case moves forward, the Supreme Court will determine whether the dissolution of Parliament was legally valid, given the ongoing motions of no confidence, and whether the President had a conflict of interest that could have influenced his decision.
The court has not yet set a date for the urgent constitutional application filed by the former Opposition.
