Papua New Guinea Parliament will not be recalled to debate a motion of confidence in Prime Minister James Marape.
This follows a Supreme Court ruling last week that dismissed a bid by Opposition Leader James Nomane for the recall, because it was “an abuse of process”.
The decision was delivered in Waigani by Justice David Cannings on behalf of a five-man bench, comprising himself and justices George Manuhu, Derek Hartshorn, Joseph Yagi, and Colin Makail.
The bench held that one of the essential criterion in the Somare rules was that Nomane had raised significant constitutional issues, which were however, raised and resolved recently in previous Section 18(1) applications.
The recent matter by East Sepik Governor Allan Bird was raised as a case in point.
Nomane filed the application on March 4, under Section 18(1) of the Constitution, seeking a declaration that Constitutional Amendment No 48 (Motions of No Confidence) in Law 2025 in Section 145(5) is invalid for various reasons.
The amended Section 145 (5) of the Constitution says that a motion of no confidence cannot be moved for another 18 months, starting from the date the no-confidence motion was unsuccessful.
Nomane argued that the amendment restricts the exercise of rights conferred by Section 50 of the Constitution on collective responsibility of the Executive arm of government to the people through the Parliament enshrined in Section 141 of the Constitution.
He also sought a declaration that the rejection on Oct 30, 2025, of a notice of motion of no confidence in the prime minister dated Oct 29, relying on the new Section 145(5), was unconstitutional and invalid.
Nomane said the notice met the requirements of Section 145 of the Constitution and an order that the clerk to Parliament should table it, that it be moved, debated, and voted upon within 14 days.
The interveners in the proceeding are Parliament Speaker Job Pomat and Attorney-General Pila Niningi.
Niningi’s lawyer, Jurth Levente, submitted that the case cannot be heard again after similar facts or pleadings were raised in earlier proceedings by Bird and Nomane.
He argued that the application is frivolous, vexatious, for failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action, and for being an abuse of court processes.
They held that Nomane’s application was an abuse of process, because he had attempted to bring up issues that have been finally resolved in two previous cases.
