OPPOSITION’S LEGAL CHALLENGE OVER THE MANUS ASYLUM SEEKERS DEAL CONTINUES UNDETERRED Papua New Guinea Opposition Leader Hon. Belden Norman Namah, in response to a recent article on PNG Loop entitled ‘Court rejects Namah bid in Manus case’ which reported that ‘the Supreme Court has dismissed an application by the Opposition Leader’ and that ‘Namah’s application was dismissed’ in court on Friday (Aug 1st), has clarified that he is still a party to proceedings regarding the Manus Island Asylum Seekers Deal. “We applied to set the date for hearing. Our substantive matter is still on foot and returnable on 18th August,” Mr Namah said. On January 3rd this year Mr Namah instructed Henao Lawyers to file two applications in the National Court. “The first application will seek an order to free these people and repatriate them back to Australia and the second application will ask the National Court to declare the whole asylum scheme and the operation of the detention centre illegal, the Opposition Leader Mr Namah said. The Opposition Leaders standing was then called into question by the Government. Following the Opposition Leaders standing being recognized by the Supreme Court on 29 January, 2014, the O’Neill-Dion Government moved quickly and quietly in March to amend Section 42 of the Constitution. The major move to amend Section 42, which was not made known to the country (at the time the amendment was made) through domestic mainstream media, would be made as predicted in advance by political observer by the Government primarily to try and thwart and deter the Oppositions legal challenge. The move by the Government to amend Section 42 of the Constitution did not deter and has not deterred the Oppositions legal challenge in any way whatsoever. Instead it appears that the move by the Government to seemingly try and legitimize the Asylum Seekers Deal has given added weight and impetus to the Oppositions legal challenge. In April this year, the Opposition Leader Hon. Belden Norman Namah said in a statement, “The Prime Minister unilaterally signed the Asylum Seekers Deal. We said the deal was bad and dictatorial because the deal was signed without the approval of the National Executive Council and the National Parliament. Also, Manus Provincial Government, Manus Leaders and the people of Manus were never consulted. We said the Prime Minister’s decision violated section 42 of the National Constitution and the Immigration Act. The recent amendment to section 42 by Parliament to allow the Government to detain persons on behalf of or at the request of a foreign government proves that the Opposition was right all along.” Lawyer Loani Henao spoke with ABC journalist Liam Fox in an interview (transcribed) with Radio Australia (updated April 3rd), in which he revealed the following insights into the ongoing court challenge which the Opposition Leader has described before as being about ‘serious jurisdictional issues’. Henao: “The amendment to Section 42 was not made in the interest of the people of this country or I might add not for the interest of the government of Papua New Guinea. It was made at the behest of a foreign government, in this case the Australian Government, so we are looking at that.” Fox: “You believe that this constitutional change was made at the behest of the Australian Government, what evidence do you have of that?” Henao: “Well if you look at the circumstances giving rise to this amendment it came about because of the arrangement Australia and PNG government entered into couple of years ago to allow for the persons seeking asylum in Australia to be transferred to Papua New Guinea which as we all know that is currently being… is controversial and if not to cater for further arrangement I am pretty sure that this amendment that was passed by parliament would not have come about and I think it is as a result of that arrangement and I think it is a result of the government of this country realizing that what they have done may not be constitutionally valid they have moved, in my respectful view, moved to legitimize an arrangement that they have made which was in our claim is not provided for by the constitution.” Fox: “So in essence you would say that this, the constitutional amendments are really designed to head off your challenge and really are an admission that what they were doing was not legal in the first place.” Henao: “It seems, it seems to be the case that it appears that they are trying to legitimize what they should not have done in the first place that is to bring these asylum seekers into the country. In our view it’s against Section 42 of our constitution.” Fox: “Even though these amendments are passed I mean does it, does it retrospectively protect what has happened in the past?” Henao: “It does not expressly state that the amendment have a retrospective effect and so in my view that it comes into effect as of the 11th of March, that’s the date when the Speaker certified the amendment. I think the overall impact of this amendment is that it’s not something that came about or arose as a result of a need needed in this country. It is something that came up as a result of a need of a foreign government and I think that is something that everybody should be really concerned about. It really boils down to the sovereignty of this country.” Pictured: Papua New Guinea Opposition Leader & Vanimo-Green MP, Hon. Belden Norman Namah
Posted on: Mon, 04 Aug 2014 09:50:33 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015