P Olitical Reviews • Melane S I a 461 Va N Uat U

p olitical reviews • melane s i a 461 PhD dissertation, Department of Political in complaints that he had effectively Science, Northern Illinois University. bought a diplomatic passport. Post-Courier. Daily. Port Moresby. Throughout the year his business interests in Vanuatu and involvement World Bank. 2002. Papua New Guinea: with various politicians increased, World Bank Approves the Release of the raising some concerns. Toward the Second Tranche under the Governance Promotion Adjustment Loan. News end of 20 0 0 Gh o s h ’s involvement with Release 2002 /170/s, Washington d c. the Vanuatu government took a some- what bizarre turn as he presented the country with a gift of a ruby allegedly worth u s$174 million. The stated V a n u a t u purpose of this gift was “that it could be used as collateral to get financial Vanuatu experienced another change assistance” (TP, 6 Dec 2000). No of government as a result of a no- independent valuation of th is ruby wa s confidence motion in 2001. While no- available however, nor was it available confidence motions have formed part to be inspected by customs officers. of the political landscape in Vanuatu The ruby’s valuation on Australian in recent years, what made this event customs declaration forms was only extraordinary was the involvement of u s$40,000, casting further doubt on the Supreme Court in the parliamen- its value. ta ry wrangles. These events have dom- In March of 2001 dealings between inated politics in Vanuatu in 2001. Ghosh and the Vanuatu government At the beginning of the year the took a further strange turn when it government was a coalition headed by was revealed that the government had Barak Sope of the Melanesian Prog re s- signed an agreement with Ghosh that sive Party. The other main partners in apparently would give him bank guar- this coalition were the Union of Mod- antees worth u s$10 million over a erate Parties, the National United period of ten years. As a further part Party, and the Vanuatu Republican of this agreement a Hong Kong–based Party. This government had come to company, Sun Jewel group, who had power in November of 1999, when agreed to buy the ruby for u s$175 then Prime Minister Donald Kalpokas million, was to manufacture gold and of the Vanua‘aku Party resigned in silver coins for sale by the Reserve ord e rtoa v o i dan o - c o n f i d e n ce mo t i o n . Bank of Vanuatu. The agreement pro- Dissatisfaction with the Sope-led vided that Ghosh would pay the costs government had been growing, due in associated with the manufacturing large part to its dealings with Ama- and transport of these coins, and the rendra Nand Ghosh. Ghosh, a Thai Reserve Bank of Vanuatu would keep businessman, came to attention in all proceeds associated with the coins. April of 2000. It was around this time This agreement was signed despite that, soon after giving the Vanuatu doubts expressed by the governor of government 10 million vatu for disas- the reserve bank as to the legality of ter relief, he was appointed Honorary such actions (p i r , 23 Mar 2001). Consul to Thailand and awarded Another factor that contributed honorary citizenship. This resulted 462 the contemporary pacific • fall 2002 to the vote of no confidence was the of the Republic of Vanuatu to dissolve deportation of Marc Neil Jones, pub- parliament. He further stated that he lisher of the Trading Post newspaper, would resign if the president declined on 19 January 2001. Jones was to dissolve parliament. The Speaker deported from Vanuatu for publishing then adjourned the sitting of parlia- stories about the relationship between ment to the following day. Ghosh and the government. He The president, Father John Bani, returned to Vanuatu after two days, declined to dissolve parliament, following an interim order by then because the motivation for doing so Acting Chief Justice Lunabeck that was to avoid voting on the motion of allowed him back into the country no confidence. Parliament therefore until the legality of his deportation reconvened for normal business on could be resolved in court. The matter March 28. Despite his earlier state- was finally settled out of court, with ment, Sope did not resign as prime Jones receiving about 1.4 million vatu minister. As there were no written in costs and personal compensation in questions before parliament, the December of 2001 (Jones, pers comm, Speaker adjourned the sitting to 1 Feb 2002). The deportation raised 4:00 pm on 3 April when parliament widespread concerns about the gov- could debate and vote on the motion ernment’s lack of respect for consti- of no confidence. tutionally enshrined human rights. It Following the submission of the also effectively raised the question of vote of no confidence there were alle- what the government had to hide in gations that agents of Dinh van Than, its dealings with Ghosh. president of the National United Party, Soon after the bank guarantees had approached various opposition agreement was signed, the Union of members of parliament, attempting to Moderate Parties left the coalition bribe them to return to the govern- go v e rnment and joined the opposition, ment. Stories that opposition members led by Edward Natapei of the Vanua- of parliament were being harassed by ‘aku Party. On 26 March the opposi- groups of people, ap p a re n t ly on ord e r s tion, now having a majority in parlia- from various government supporters, ment, submitted to the Speaker, Paul also circulated (TP, 31 Mar 2001). Ren Tari, a notice of a motion of no When parliament reconvened on confidence in Prime Minister Sope. 3 April 2001, the Speaker ruled that The Speaker ruled that this notice was there would be no debate of the in order and placed it on the agenda motion because it contained some to be debated on Tuesday, 3 April, as typing errors or incorrect references part of the First Ordinary Session of to the provisions of the Constitution. Parliament. As this was the last item on the On 27 Ma rch the government with- agenda, the Speaker then closed the drew all government bills intended for First Ordinary Session of Parliament. debate during the session. Sope then That day the opposition took two announced that the Council of Minis- actions. First they filed suit in the ters, which had met earlier in the day, Supreme Court on the grounds that had resolved to advise the president the Speaker’s actions in closing the p olitical reviews • melane s i a 463 First Session of Parliament were anybody to speak, but adjourned par- unconstitutional. They also filed a liament until 17 April. The apparent second motion of no confidence with justification for this action was that the clerk of parliament and issued a no amendment to the written motion summons to the Speaker to call an had been made, so parliament was extraordinary session of parliament adjourned to allow for an amendment to debate this second motion. to be made. On 6 April Chief Justice Lunabeck The next stage in the drama ruled that the closure of parliament occurred on 11 April when the oppo- was in breach of Article 43 (2) of the sition applied to the Supreme Court Constitution, which gives members of for an order commanding the Speaker parliament a constitutional right to to summon parliament to meet that debate motions of no confidence, pro- day at 2:00 p m to allow debate on vided the correct procedures are fol- the motion. Chief Justice Lunabeck lowed. The typing errors or incorrect found that repeated adjournments of references were not sufficient grounds parliament were unconstitutional, as to prevent debate on the motion, par- they did not allow for the debate of ticularly as it had been accepted for the no-confidence motion, a right pro- debate by the Speaker on 26 March. vided by Article 43 (2). He ordered The court ordered that the Speaker that the Speaker summon parliament reconvene parliament forthwith in to meet at 6:00 p m on 12 April, and order to allow debate on the motion allow parliament time to debate and (Natapei & Ors v Tari No 1, 2001). vote on the motion. He further found During this hearing the irregularities that the Speaker’s actions constituted in the motion were rectified by the a breach of the court order of 6 April, court. After this court ruling (which and that any failure to comply with upheld the continued validity of the the new order to convene parliament first motion of no confidence), the would be in contempt of court (Nata- second motion became largely irrele- pei & Ors v Tari No 2, 2001). vant to the political wrangling. Parliament was not convened, and At 2:00 p m on 6 April parliament on 13 April contempt proceedings was reconvened, although many of were initiated. During these proceed- the members of the Sope government ings the Speaker apologized for dis- did not attend or turned up la t e .W h e n obeying the court orders and under- the session finally commenced the took to reconvene parliament at seven Speaker suspended parliament until o’clock that night to allow for debate Tuesday, 10 April. His apparent justi- of the motion. On this apology the fication for doing so was that Stand- contempt proceedings were with- ing Order of Parliament 23 allows for drawn, although the court ordered debate on written motions on Tue s d a y that any failure to convene parliament afternoons.

Load more