Independent MPs Seek Court’s Intervention Over Blocked Deliberations on Prime Minister’s Vote
Taniela Fusimalohi: The VONC outcome will be legally challenged.
The motion for a Vote of No Confidence in the Prime Minister, tabled in Parliament, was defeated. However, rather than being a simple parliamentary decision, the issue will now transition to the legal realm, as justice is sought in the courts.
The Members of Parliament who presented the Vote of No Confidence motion are particularly concerned about the Speaker’s decision. They argue that he allowed the Prime Minister’s motion to be voted on immediately after its reading and the subsequent responses. There was no room for debate or deliberation. Essentially, after a day and a half of reading, any potential deliberations on the actual Vote of No Confidence motion were halted.
While the Prime Minister’s confidence in the numbers was evident, the primary expectation was to discuss the issues at hand, rather than just proceed with a lengthy reading.
A critical question that arises is whether there was pertinent information from those who initiated the motion for the Vote of No Confidence. Was the Government attempting to conceal information that might have surfaced had a deliberation taken place? This query is now top of mind for many.
In an effort to shed light on the situation, ‘Eua 11 MP provided some clarifications:
“The motion for a Vote of No Confidence in the Prime Minister of Tonga is an intrinsic political mechanism within the Constitution. Its purpose is to evaluate the performance of the ruling government. The motion discussed this week wasn’t aimed to discredit the Prime Minister or his government. Instead, it sought to determine if the Prime Minister and his administration had violated laws, lacked transparency in Parliament, misused public funds, or possibly failed in their leadership duties. Concerns also surrounded potential misuse of power, financial impropriety, misleading Parliament, or neglecting the rule of law.
The primary aim of the Vote of No Confidence is to maintain good governance and to ensure the welfare of the public is always at the forefront. Every Member of Parliament has the right to discuss a motion presented in Parliament, including those of No Confidence. It is our belief that this right was unfairly taken away, with no reasonable explanation based on the Orders of the House. Our right to debate was denied. This restriction is the primary reason why Members of Parliament challenged him on Wednesday, 6th September. The Prime Minister’s push for an immediate vote, without room for discussion, stripped us of our constitutional right.
The events of Wednesday infringed upon the Constitution, and this violation forms the foundation of our forthcoming legal challenge. The subsequent step involves evaluating the legality of this decision and its potential breach of the Constitution. Resorting to the courts for clarity on this matter is not an action of embarrassment. Instead, it’s a means to determine the most informed course of action for future Vote of No Confidence motions.”
