Vanuatu Daily News Digest | 15 October 2015

27 MPs sign the Motion of No Confidence in Kilman because of the current political situation in the country which has seen an acting president illegally pardoning himself and 13 colleague MPs convicted guilty on bribery charges a week ago. This has embarrassed the country internationally the Opposition claims, and as is clearly heard as such in international reporting of overseas broadcasters. The one MP who admitted guilt in bribery matters (Willie Jimmy) was not pardoned. The 27 MPs (just over half the Parliament) are clearly behind the Opposition leaders, Natuman, Lini and Regenvanu. PM Kilman has issued a few more words in the matter of the pardons, simply to say he does not need the advice of the Opposition. (Daily Post) As head of the Executive he must wait until a final decision is taken by the Judiciary, he claims.

‘Pipite premature pardons’ aside, Daily Post today reveals huge additional allowances for VT 27 million per annum to the Official Salaries Act under headings which have been gazetted – but are effectively "new salaries or perks".

The State Law Office says it is neutral on the pardon question and says it did not play an active role in the pardon issues.

A senior government officer said that ministers of government did consider deporting Justice Mary Sey after the bribery convictions, but the PM was not present.

Anyway, voting day has progressed peacefully today and only took 4 minutes from ‘in to out’ at the new ex-FOL voting station, the catering and hospitality school.


2 Comments on “Vanuatu Daily News Digest | 15 October 2015”

  1. Jonathan says:

    State Law is the principal legal adviser of the Government of the Republic of Vanuatu. There is no doubt it has followed the procedure of Gazetting of the pardon order in providing judicial notice. A judicial notice will allow the instrument of pardon to be contested as evidence in a court of law. But what I am concerned about, is why State Law office did not in first place study and advised the legality of the instrument so that it would prevent the saga of self pardoning. It is too obvious that prior to this saga, a criminal court has convicted the self pardoning acting Head of States, and other MPS. How come did State Law pass by this legal issue and proceed with the Gazetting. Even a new law graduate will have seen this constitutional crises.

    Should State Law Office taken the step to advise the Acting Head of States on the legality of the instrument of pardons or take the matter to Court, it would eventually led on to the neutrality of State Law Office because it has done its job as the legal adviser of the Republic. However it seems that this is not the case, therefore there is still doubt on the neutrality of State Law Office regarding the gazetting of the pardon instrument.

    Like

  2. Alan Churchill says:

    Surely in a democracy a conviction would automatically negate any office held, irrespective of any sentencing? Seyonara (sic) guys.

    Like