SUPREME COURT RULES AGAINST PARLIAMENT DECISION ON VONC MOTION

The Supreme Court has ruled that the decision by the Private Business Committee to reject the 27th of November 2024 motion of No Confidence in the Prime Minister on the notice paper was unconstitutional and in breach of Section 111 of the Constitution.

The case, which was filed by Deputy Opposition Leader and member for Chuave James Nomane, has now been ruled in his favor to proceed and debate on the motion after the Court ruled against the Parliament’s decision to disallow a motion of No Confidence in the Prime Minister, was unconstitutional.

The motion was disallowed based on Section 165 of the Standing Orders, which prevents a motion to take place within twelve months.
The Supreme Court was asked to determine the constitutionality of Section 165 and the decision to disallow the motion.

The Court then found that the Private Business Committee had made the decision to disallow the motion of no confidence, which was then conveyed to the Parliament by the Deputy Speaker.

Being that the Court found that Section 165 as it applies to motions of no confidence in the Prime Minister, is inconsistent with the Constitution and therefore, unconstitutional and that the decision to disallow the motion of no confidence was unconstitutional.

The Court declared as follows:

1. It is declared that the Private Business Committee’s decision of 27 November 2024 to reject a motion of no confidence in the Prime Minister was unconstitutional for being in breach of Section 111 (right to introduce bills etc.) of the Constitution.
2. It is declared that the Parliament’s resolution of 12 September 2024 to reject a motion of no confidence in the Prime Minister did not perforce of Sections 50(1)(e), 111(1), 142(5) and 145 of the Constitution, restrict the right of members of the Parliament to submit another motion of no confidence in the same Prime Minister.
3. It is declared that the decision of the Private Business Committee to not place the motion of no confidence on the notice paper was contrary to the principle of collective responsibility of the executive arm of government to the Parliament under Section 141 of the Constitution.
4. It is declared that Section 165 of the Standing Orders, to the extent that it applies to a motion of no confidence, is unconstitutional for being inconsistent with Sections 50(1)(e), 111(1), 142(5) and 145 of the Constitution.
5. It is declared that Section 134 (proceedings non-justiciable) of the Constitution does not limit the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction to declare the decision of the Private Business Committee unconstitutional.
6. It is declared that the question of whether Section 165 of the Standing Orders is unconstitutional is justiciable.
7. It is declared that the decision of the Private Business Committee to reject the motion of no confidence of 27 November 2024 is invalid, inconsistent or ineffective pursuant to Section 11(1) of the Constitution.
8. It is ordered that the Speaker of the National Parliament shall take all steps necessary to recall the Parliament to meet on 8 April 2025 and to facilitate debate of the motion of no confidence of 27 November 2024.
9. It is ordered that the Private Business Committee shall deliver the motion of no confidence of 27 November 2024 to the Clerk of the Parliament, who shall list it on the notice paper forthwith.

Subject to specific costs orders made in the course of these proceedings, the interveners shall pay the applicant’s costs of the proceedings on a party-party basis, which shall, if not agreed, be taxed.

The Court’s declared that Section 165 of the Standing Orders is unconstitutional to the extent that it applies to motions of No Confidence in the Prime Minister.

Parliament will now be recalled on April the 8th 2025, to deliberate on the motion of No Confidence of 27 November 2024.