Nullity-in-motion-to-remove-Head-of-State:-President-legal-counsel

The legal counsel representing the Head of State, Mark Hurley, from Hurley Lawyers has filed a response in which they argue that the motion to remove President Nikenike Vurobaravu is legally invalid, or a nullity.

A copy of this response was obtained by the Vanuatu Daily Post. It specifically challenges the validity of the purported Motion No.7 of 2024, which sought to have the Electoral College pass a resolution for the removal of the President.

The core argument put forward by Counsel Hurley is that the motion fails to comply with the requirements stipulated in Article 36(2) of the Constitution of Vanuatu.

He argued that the Electoral College as provided for under the Article 34 of the Constitution, had not been convened for the purpose Article 36 (2) of the constitution.

The Electoral College is comprised of 58 members, being the 52 Members of Parliament (MPs) together with the Chairmen of the 6 Local Government Councils (Provincial Presidents).

Counsel Hurley also argued that contrary to Article 36(2) the purported motion was not introduced by at least one-third of the members of Electoral College, instead, it was signed by 19 MPs, being less than the one third members of the Electoral College and introduced in Parliament.

On the 7th of November, 19 MPs from the former Opposition signed the motion to remove the president, and it was ruled that it met all constitutional requirements, with 19 MPs claimed to represent 1/3 of 58.

However, the Daily Post understands that the Head of State’s legal counsel is allegedly arguing that rounding up 1/3 of 58 results in 19.33, thus the applicants allegedly did not meet the required number.

Counsel Hurley further argued that the President received a letter on 18 November 2024 at approximately 4pm, signed and delivered by Prime Minister Charlot Salwai, captioned: “Advice of the Council of Ministers to advise the President to dissolve Parliament” in accordance with Article 28(3) of the Constitution.

Meanwhile, the former Opposition remains confident in the constitutional case, claiming there is a conflict of interest and that all constitutional requirements were met.

The outcome of the hearing on 10 December could set a decisive precedent regarding the interpretation of constitutional provisions, such as the one-third requirement for motions in the Electoral College.

The ruling may hinge on the Court’s interpretation of the Constitution, the principle of fair representation, and how strictly the numerical requirements are applied.


SOURCE: VANUATU DAILY POST