Dear Editor - We refer to Sir Peter’s letter to the Editor on page 6 of Solomon Star, Friday February 25, 2011, No. 4484.
Section 34 of the Constitution only allows the Governor-General to remove the Prime Minister on the advice of Parliament, unlike what Governor-General, Kerr, did to Prime Minister, Whitlam, in 1975 in Australia.
This is no longer the issue in Solomon Islands.
The issue is that the Constitution does not say who calls a meeting of Parliament to decide removing a Prime Minister who refuses to resign from office having allegedly losing majority support in Parliament.
The framers of our Constitution were expecting the Prime Minister to voluntarily step down, like in the United Kingdom, if he or she loses majority support in Parliament.
This is what happens in the United Kingdom where party politics has matured for centuries.
The framers of the Constitution did not codify this convention nor did they modify it in the Constitution.
It was left to operate as it is in the United Kingdom.
This convention has proven to be unworkable in Solomon Islands.
History since independence has proven that this convention does not work in Solomon Islands because of lack of proper political parties.
This is our problem.
Prime Ministers do very rarely step down voluntarily without a fight in Parliament. The temptation to buy time by delaying the meeting of Parliament is a reality in the politics of Solomon Islands.
The Court of Appeal fixed the problem in 1994 by saying the answer lie with the Governor-General.
In 1999 the Court of Appeal said the decision in 1994 was wrong. The answer does not lie with the Governor-General.
It does not however say who has the power. It identified the problem but left the issue open-ended in 1999 hoping the politicians would fix it.
No one has fixed the problem up until now.
When the same issue came up again this year, the media, the Opposition and others again put the Governor-General in the firing line based on the 1994 case which is long out-dated.
The principle of majority rule is contained in sections 71 and 34 of the Constitution-not in section 72(1).
Can this problem be fixed now? It is bound to come up again. Who will then be asked to fix it?
Rawcliffe Ziza
Deputy Private Secretary
Government House
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
