Ex-change Email with Hon. Marcus Stephen – Opposition party

Since the Speaker of Parliament Hon. Ludwig Scotty has issued a declaration that parliament has been dissolved on Friday 8, of March 2013, I wrote an email to the Opposition Leader Hon. Marcus Stephen to share his opinion on the Speaker’s action to dissolving parliament without allowing the members of parliament their right to contest the motion under Article 41 of the Constitution of Nauru.

Mr Stephen said, what the Speaker did after the Chief Justice has made his declaration is very disappointing. Especially when he gave his word that he will abide with the Supreme Court’s decision. He said the declaration made by the Chief Justice on Article 41 is very clear, the dissolution recommended by the President must go through the process under Article 41.

These include (1) President advice and hand a signed letter to Speaker of Parliament of the dissolution, (2) Speaker to read the dissolution letter to the House and (3) Speaker refers the dissolution to the members of parliament. He said 1 and 2 has been done but not 3.

Furthermore Mr Stephen said, according to the declaration made by the Chief Justice, the dissolution has not started since Article 41 of the Constitution of Nauru which is the Supreme Law, has not been met.

He said the Speaker has the powers to call Parliament within the 7 days when the House was adjourned sine die and under Article 41 to ensure members can agree or disagree to the dissolution. Plus the President can also reconvene the Sitting to allow the processes under Article 41, but both have not done anything.

According to Mr Stephen, he said this is not an issue or debate on the Speakers decision to sine die parliament, the Speaker under Standing Orders can adjourn the House sine die, but again, it is not about numbers on the floor and it is not about going back to the elections (we all want to dissolve). But it is about Article 41 and protecting the Supreme Law of Nauru, the Constitution.

He said this is for a very good reason. For example, let’s say that President and Speaker are very good friends. If the other remaining 16 members wish to move a no confidence vote against the President, then the majority on the floor must be given the opportunity. However, Article 41 is established to have this protection to the majority MPs and not what we have today a dictatorial Leader and Speaker who will dissolve the House then run out of Parliament and not call a Sitting and allow 7 days to pass so the dissolution kicks in.

Where is the democracy? Mr Stephen said.

He said unless there is no number on the floor then it’s good. But at least the members on the floor should have agreed to dissolve. Again this is very important, because every member representing their constituencies speaks on behalf of their people. What has happened is that the Speaker and the President have decided for everyone, leaving the elected members of parliament to have no say.

Mr Stephen said the people from Ewa and Anetan never asked the President and Speaker to decide matters on our behalf. I am sure people from Aiwo, Boe and other constituencies will never asked the President and Speaker to decide matters on their behalf. Again it is the principle of democracy, let the elected members decide to agree or disagree.

However, he said going back to the petition signed by the nine MPs under Article 42 for a sitting that was very specific and that a motion under Article 24 is to be moved as parliament has no confidence in the President and his Cabinet. Nine members signed the petition. This under standing orders takes precedence during the Sitting. Again Speaker ignored this and read his statement about unruly behaviour.

Mr Stephen said did the action of one member “Heckling” at the earlier sitting deserve to penalise everyone? Heckling is normal in any Parliament sitting but as long as not beyond reasonable. The Chief Justice in his declaration also said that such behaviour can be dealt with by Speaker by removing the member out from the House for contempt.

He said I for one as a Member of Parliament should not let this one go. If I do then I shouldn’t be standing for MP. We are talking here about upholding the Supreme Law of Nauru and no one is above the Law. Every MP should be disappointed.

In conclusion Mr Stephen said you can see that some of us have no choice but to take the next step and that is to take the Speaker to Court. What happens after is up to the Chief Justice to decide for himself.