SOMARE IS QUALFIED TO BE PM, SO HOW DID GELU GET IS SO WRONG????
I was quite surprised to read today’s Post Courier front page story purporting that the Registrar of the Office of Political Parties and Candidates, Dr. Alphonse Gelu statement that the Grand Chief Sir Michael Somare cannot be candidate for PM in a vote of no-confidence. It left me wondering what or who provoked the Post Courier reporter to contact Dr. Gelu seeking his opinion on such a politically loaded issue and yet arrive at a misleading response.
It suggests that perhaps the whole story was initiated by Prime Minister’s media unit in the guise it was independent reporting. This view is supported by the fact the report failed to make a signal reference to any specific provisions that the Organic Organic Law on the Integrity of Political Parties and Candidates to support Dr. Gelu “technically and legally” flawed opinion that Sir Michael was not the right candidate because according to Political Parties and Candidates Registry records, the East Sepik Governor is still a member of the NA Party.
If the reporter has even bothered to research the facts by actually reviewing the law or Supreme Court ruling on the issue. The report is in it’s entirety baseless and misleading and suggests it was to serve political interests.
I note the report mentioned “that NA Party spokesperson responded that NA is an institution and Members are bound by the party constitution therefore the matter will be referred to the appropriate authority.” Well the appropriate authority is the Supreme Court who ruled that any provisions of Organic Law that restrict and prohibit the exercise of a Member of Parliament’s right under s 50 (1)(e) of the Constitution are rendered invalid and to no legal effect. This view was expressed in two separate proceedings; Supreme Court Special Reference By Fly River Provincial Executive Council; Re Organic Law on Integrity of Political Parties and Candidates  and Supreme Court Reference declaration sought as to interpretation and application of provisions of the Constitution regarding motions of no confidence in the Prime Minister: Section 145 (motions of no confidence).
The High Court ruled the extent that those amendments of the Constitution that restrict and prohibit the exercise of the qualified constitutional rights given to Members of Parliament by s 50 (1) (e) of the Constitution, they are inconsistent with the existing qualification under s 50 (2) and are therefore of no force and effect. This included restricting a member of the Parliament from resigning or withdrawing from or failing to support a political party of which he is a member.
I have noted in recent years the mainstream media in my opinion has lost its independence and credibility and perhaps it’s time to start making inquiries into, and reporting on the special relationships between senior journalist, editors and senior management with high ranking Government Politicians.
Source/Author: Bryan Kramer – Social Media