Speaker of Parliament Filimoni Jitoko says in his view, there appears to be an inherent inconsistency and conflict between the provisions of Section 159(2)(c) of the Constitution and the overall objective of Chapter 11 as perceived from each objective, that is, amendments to the Constitution.
According to Section 159(2)(c) of the Constitution, no amendment to the Constitution may ever repeal, infringe or diminish the effect of Chapter 11.
Chapter 11 of the Constitution relates to the amendment of the Constitution.
Jitoko highlighted this while giving his ruling to Opposition MP Faiyaz Koya’s point of order to object to the tabling of a motion to suspend relevant Parliamentary Standing Orders to allow for the Constitution Amendment Bill to be tabled.
The Speaker says both he and Koya agree that amendments to the Constitution has its own procedures and rules that are set out under Chapter 11 and the Standing Orders of the Parliament are subordinate or subservient to the primary law of the land, the Constitution.
He says in as much as the Standing Orders try to modify the procedures and processes or attempts to amend the provision of the Constitution, but of which there appears to be inherent conflict with the enabling provisions of the Constitution, to do the same, then the Standing Orders take second place.
Jitoko says if the strict interpretation put to Section 159(2)(c), as argued by Koya, were applied then any or all attempts to modify, amend, or change any provision of the Constitution will fail or must fail, yet, Chapter 11 sets out the procedures and processes of amending it.
The Speaker says in his view the interpretation of Section 159(2)(c) must be taken of the overall objective of Chapter 11, that is, any amendments to the Constitution, or more precisely, how the Constitution should be amended.
He says if that is made, the motion introduced by the Leader of the Government Ro Filipe Tuisawau is only to allow the process of amendments as set out under Section 160 of the Constitution to take place.
