Have all options been exhausted for the Opposition after the supreme court decision?

James Nomane’s recent failed Supreme Court case in Papua New Guinea represents another significant setback for the opposition in their ongoing struggle to hold the government accountable through motions of no confidence.

To fully appreciate the implications of this ruling, it’s crucial to understand the turbulent political landscape that led to this legal challenge.

A Shifting Battleground for the opposition

Papua New Guinea’s political system, characterized by fluid allegiances and frequent defections, often sees motions of no confidence (VONCs) as a primary mechanism for challenging incumbent prime ministers. However, this mechanism has also been a source of immense instability, with governments rarely serving a full term.

Prime Minister James Marape has consistently faced pressure from the opposition, culminating in multiple VONC attempts. A key development in this ongoing saga was the opposition’s motion of no confidence against Marape on November 27, 2024. This motion was initially rejected by Parliament’s Private Business Committee, citing Section 165 of the Standing Orders, which disallows motions deemed identical to those resolved within the preceding 12 months. This rejection sparked the first crucial legal battle.

Deputy Opposition Leader James Nomane took this rejection to the Supreme Court. In a significant victory for the opposition on March 31, 2025, the Supreme Court declared that Parliament’s decision to disallow the November 27, 2024, motion was unconstitutional. The Court ruled that Section 165 of the Standing Orders, as applied to VONCs, was inconsistent with the Constitution, particularly Section 111 (right to introduce bills) and Section 145 (VONC provisions). Critically, the Court ordered Parliament to be recalled by April 8, 2025, to debate the very motion of no confidence that had been disallowed.

In response to this legal pressure and to create more political stability, the Marape government moved swiftly to amend Section 145 of the Constitution. This amendment, passed on March 11, 2025, with overwhelming government support, introduced an 18-month grace period for a prime minister who successfully defeats a motion of no confidence. This meant that if a VONC failed, no subsequent motion could be moved for a year and a half.

When Parliament eventually debated the November 27, 2024, motion on April 15, 2025 (as ordered by the Supreme Court), it was defeated by a significant margin (16 for, 89 against), securing Marape’s position. It was in the wake of this defeat, and with the new constitutional amendment in place, that Nomane launched his most recent Supreme Court application.

Analysis of the Failed Case

Nomane’s latest application on April 17, 2025, sought a Supreme Court order to declare that the newly enacted Constitutional Amendment 48 (Motions of No Confidence) Law 2025 had no application to the specific motion of no confidence of November 27, 2024. In essence, he aimed to prevent the government from retroactively applying the new 18-month grace period to a motion that had originated before the amendment was passed.

However, the Supreme Court, comprising Chief Justice Sir Gibbs Salika and three other judges, dismissed Nomane’s case. The critical reason for dismissal was procedural: the court deemed the application an “abuse of process” under Order 13 rule 16(1)(a) of the Supreme Court Rules. The Chief Justice clarified that attempting to clarify a final judgment through a post-judgment application was not the correct legal avenue. While the issues Nomane sought to clarify might be valid, the method of bringing them before the court was flawed.

Implications for the Opposition

The failure of James Nomane’s latest Supreme Court case has several significant implications for the PNG parliamentary opposition:

• Procedural Hurdles Remain: The ruling highlights the intricate procedural challenges faced by the opposition in their legal battles. Even with a substantive victory (like the March 31 ruling), subsequent attempts to navigate complex constitutional amendments require precise legal strategy. This loss underscores the need for meticulous legal planning.
• Reinforced Government Stability (for now): The government’s successful defeat of the November 2024 VONC, combined with the new 18-month grace period, effectively insulates Prime Minister Marape from further no-confidence motions until close to the next general election in 2027. This provides Marape with a significant period of political stability, which the opposition will find challenging to disrupt through parliamentary means.
• Diminished Effectiveness of VONCs: While VONCs are intended as a vital accountability mechanism, the government’s ability to amend the Constitution to introduce longer grace periods significantly curtails their effectiveness. The opposition now has a much narrower window to mount a successful challenge, reducing the “pressure valve” effect that VONCs historically provided.
• Focus Shift from Parliament to Court (and back again): The sequence of events demonstrates how the political battleground has shifted between Parliament and the Supreme Court. While the Court previously provided an avenue for the opposition to force a VONC debate, the latest ruling emphasizes the Court’s role in maintaining procedural integrity, even if it means dismissing applications on technical grounds. The opposition will need to be strategic in how and when they utilize legal avenues, understanding their limitations.
• Need for Alternative Strategies: With the parliamentary route for VONCs now significantly constrained, the opposition will need to explore alternative strategies to hold the government accountable and build public support. This could involve increased scrutiny of government policies, public awareness campaigns, and mobilizing public sentiment outside of the parliamentary chamber.

James Nomane’s failed Supreme Court case, while ostensibly a procedural loss, reflects a broader tightening of the political space for the PNG opposition.

The government’s strategic use of constitutional amendments, coupled with the courts’ adherence to procedural correctness, has created a formidable barrier to conventional challenges. The opposition’s path forward will require not just legal acumen, but also a renewed focus on building a cohesive and compelling alternative vision for the nation to engage the public and exert pressure on the government.