Vanuatu deputy Leader of the Opposition Jay Ngwele said the ruling of the Speaker of Parliament, Stephen Felix, to close Parliament on 14 November 2025—which the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional Wednesday is expected to cost the country a further VT16,625,000(US$136,011.19) in sitting allowances for Members of Parliament (MPs).
He said that with the Supreme Court ordering Speaker Felix to reconvene Parliament on 16 December 2025, MPs will be paid sitting allowances for the period from 14 November to 16 December 2025.
The Ambae MP criticised the Government and Parliament for continuing what he described as unnecessary spending, while the strike by members of the Vanuatu Teachers Union (VTU) remains unresolved and nurses are now standing down. He also noted that the Government had spent millions of vatu on its Tanna tour.
MP Ngwele said that under the Standing Orders, Parliament goes into recess on 15 December 2025, but Justice Oliver Saksak ordered that Parliament sit one day later to allow MPs already in their constituencies time to return to Port Vila.
He said the Parliament Standing Orders provide for the timing of recess, but the Constitution remains the supreme law of the Republic of Vanuatu.
Ngwele made the comment following the judgment of Justice Saksak confirming that the constitutional application by the nine Opposition MPs who signed the motion of no confidence against Prime Minister Jotham Napat was allowed.
“The incompetency of the Speaker Felix as stated in Justice Saksak’s judgment will cost the people of Vanuatu over VT16 million,” the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said.
In his declaration and orders, Justice Saksak said the Speaker of Parliament “was and is incompetent of ruling on and disposing of Motion No. 9 of 2025 and his own motion and will.”
“The ruling of the Speaker dated 14th November 2025 in summarily closing Parliament is unconstitutional and in breach of Article 43(2) of the Constitution and are hereby set aside,” Justice Saksak ruled.
“Motion No. 9 of 2025 is in order and must be debated and voted on by Parliament in accordance with Article 43(2) of the Constitution. The Speaker of Parliament [is] hereby required to immediately summon Parliament to debate on Motion No. 9 of 2025 on Tuesday 16th December 2025 at 10:30am. The applicants are entitled to their costs on the standard basis as agreed or taxed.”
Justice Saksak said counsel for the Speaker, Mr. Garry Blake, relied on several case authorities including Shadrack v Simeon (2019), Shadrack v Speaker (2020), Kilman v Speaker of Parliament (2011) and Weibur v Speaker of Parliament (2023).
He said Blake argued that there was no impediment to closing the parliamentary session once all business had been completed and therefore no constitutional rights were breached.
“I beg to defer with Blake from the evidence of Louise Loloma Vere, copies of the Motion were given or served on her by Shadrack Gracia at 9:05am on 14 November 2025,” Justice Saksak said.
“She receipted the Motion in English and French by stamping them with the receipt showing ‘RECEIVED 14/11/25 9:05AM.’ She further registered the Motion and numbered it as Motion No. 9 of 2025.
“Vere then informed Mr Banga by SMS and provided him with a copy, and he deposed that he received a text message from Gracia Shadrack about the motion at 9:15am on 14th November 2025. Subsequently, he took the copy of the motion and made [it] available to the Speaker.”
He said the Speaker acknowledged he had received a note about the motion and that Mr Banga had approached and spoken to him about it. The Speaker then decided to suspend Parliament for 15 minutes.
Justice Saksak said that after considering Article 43(2), the Speaker adjourned Parliament to 3:00pm on 14 November 2025.
He said there was no evidence from the Speaker that he objected at any point to the receipt or registration of the motion by Ms Vere.
Justice Saksak said the evidence shows Parliament was seized of Motion No. 9 of 2025 when it was receipted and registered by the Secretary.
He said that once the Speaker was informed by text message from Banga, he had been notified.
Justice Saksak said the Speaker suspended Parliament at 11:15am, later extending it to 3:00pm, indicating he had acknowledged receipt of the motion and intended it to be placed before Parliament.
During submissions on Tuesday, the Court heard that at 3:00pm the Speaker decided to close Parliament, claiming the motion did not follow the process and was in breach of Article 43(2). The Court’s judgment confirmed Wednesday that the Speaker’s ruling was unconstitutional.
