Morobe Provincial Government v Minister for Village Services [1992] PGNC 5; N1215 (25 February 1992)

Unreported National Court Decisions

N1215

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]
MOROBE PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT
v
MINISTER FOR VILLAGE SERVICES
&
THE INDEPENDENT STATE OF PAPUA NEW GUINEA>

Waigani

Salika J
25 February 1992

CONSTITUTION LAW - Provincial Government - Suspension - Recommendations by Permanent Parliamentary Committee on Provincial Government Suspension for reinstatement - Parliament confirms suspension - Constitution s. 187E - provides only grounds for suspension.

RULING

25 February 1992

SALIKA J: The Brief facts in relation to this matter is that on the 16 October 1992 the National Executive Council provisionally suspended the Morobe Provincial Government on the grounds that:

1. There was gross mismanagement of the Provincial Government funds.

2. There was political instability.

3. There was a breakdown in the administration of the province.

In April of 1993 the Permanent Parliamentary Committee on Provincial Government suspension after carrying out its investigations recommended to the Parliament to confirm the suspension and that the suspension remain in force.

However, on the 10 August 93 when presenting the Permanent Parliamentary Committee on Provincial Government suspensions report to the Parliament the committee recommended that the Morobe Provincial Government be reinstated.

The Hansard report says:

“In view of the overall improvement, this committee, therefore recommends to the reinstatement of the Morobe Provincial Government as soon as practical.”

After the report was tabled in Parliament debate on it was adjourned from the 10 October 93 to the 19 August 93. On the 19 August 93 debate resumed on the motion by Mr Nilkare that the Parliament confirm the suspension of the Morobe Provincial Government. Before Parliament could debate on the motion and the report of the Permanent Parliamentary Committee on Provincial Government suspension considered.

Mr Ben Micah started by saying:

“There are now two conflicting ideas in Parliament. One is the recommendation of the Provincial Government Suspensions Committee and the other is that the Parliament has adopted the report of the Bipartisan Committee on Provincial Governments and one of its main recommendations. That is, to enable a smooth transition of opposing systems, we must try as early as possible to introduce the new system in some provinces. That is the important recommendation that the Parliament adopted.

In order for a smooth transition, I believe that all the suspended provincial governments should remain under suspension and their provinces adopt the proposed system.

If we have to meet constitutional requirements by February and March and the Constitution needs to be changed, we will make the move.

I know that many members have their own views but if the system proposed by the committee is to work, we must adopt the motion.

Immediately after that Mr Francis Koimanrea moved for the question to be put then. Parliament voted with 68 members for confirming of the suspension of the Morobe Provincial Government and 12 against the confirmation.”

All the relevant parts of the proceedings I have referred to are contained in the Hansard which is the official document of Parliament which I take Judicial notice of.

It is apparent from the Hansard record that there was indeed no debate on the motion and on the report tabled by the Permanent Parliamentary Committee on Provincial Government suspension. As the Hansard record shows on page 79 the reasons for the confirmation and continuation of the suspension of the Morobe Provincial Government was not based on the report by Parliaments own committee.

It was based I think and from necessary implication on (which is again according to the Hansard report page 103 - 13 August 93) a recommendation by the Bipartisan Committee in Provincial Governments which recommended among other things that the current Provincial Government system be reformed and restructured into political units to be known as provincial authorities. That was the recommendation Mr Micah was referring to which had been adopted by Parliament.

The Report and recommendations by the Bipartisan Select Committee on Provincial Government was adopted by Parliament on 17 August 93.

With the report and recommendation adopted when the question of whether or not to confirm the suspension of the Provincial Government of Morobe was put Mr Micah for obvious reasons stepped in so that his Committees recommendations could be given effect.

However the law is clear a Provincial Government can only be suspended where:

(i) There is widespread corruption in the administration of the province.

(ii) There has been gross mismanagement of the financial affairs of the province.

(iii) There has been a breakdown in the administration of the province.

(iv) There has been deliberate and persistent frustration or failure to comply with lawful directions from the National Government.

(v) The Provincial Government has deliberately disobeyed laws.

Parliament through its own committee had been told that the Morobe Provincial Government be reinstated. When that recommendation was made, what in effect the committee was saying was that the circumstances under s. 187E of the Constitution did not exist anymore, therefore the suspension be lifted.

The Permanent Parliamentary Committee on Provincial Government Suspensions is the only body created to investigate into and report to Parliament on matters giving rise to the provisional suspension of the provincial government.

In this case the Permanent Parliamentary Committee on Provincial Government Suspension had done its job and it recommended reinstatement of the Morobe Provincial Government.

Parliament without debating the report in my view confirmed the suspension of the Morobe Provincial Government without a lawful reason because by that time s. 187E factors no longer existed as recommended by the Committee.

I again reiterate what I said in relation to the matter of the Gulf Provincial Government that Members of Provincial Governments are elected leaders just like the members of the National Parliament. As often is the case there may have been one or two who fall out of line and as a result of their actions or doings all the members are suspended. This is not fair to the ones who have done nothing wrong. I do not think it is fair to have the Morobe Provincial Government suspended when no legal grounds for its suspension exist. The Morobe Provincial Government has been in suspension for about 16 months now.

Because there are no legal grounds for further suspension of the Provincial Government, I order that the Morobe provincial Government be re-established forthwith by way of reinstatement to their former offices with full benefits and entitlements as appropriate retrospective to the effective date of provisional suspension.

Cost is awarded to the plaintiff.

Time is abridged.

Lawyer for the Plaintiff: Patterson Lawyers

Lawyer for the Defendant: Solicitor General