TSI Commends Speaker’s Response

TSI thanks Speaker Patterson Oti but raises concerns about implications of a political leader heading the Independent Group

Transparency Solomon Islands thanks the Speaker of Parliament for his response into the matter of the questions it raised on the appointment of a political party leader to be the Leader of the Independent Group. Whilst Transparency Solomon Islands acknowledges the quoted provisions in the Constitution making the appointment lawful a number of questions remain unaddressed and concerning. TSI whilst noting the response of the Speaker of Parliament performing his role in this appointment, it is still seriously concerned about the appointment of a Political Party Leader as the Leader of the Independent Group. This sets a bad precedent in our political system and the development of political system in the country with the enactment of the Political Parties Integrity Act 2014 under the then Prime Minister Hon Gordon Darcy Lilo. The Political Parties Integrity Act 2014 is intended to promote integrity of political parties and ultimately address political instability caused mainly by the Independent Group in Parliament. At the 2014 election, 32 Members of Parliament who won the election were independent candidates, Hon. Maelanga was appointed leader of the Independent Group. After the 2019 election, 21 independent candidates won the election with the appointment of an independent member of parliament with no party affiliation was appointed leader. Not a Political Party Leader. The most important of these is the issue of political stability that this country suffers from, the rationale of enacting the Political Parties Integrity Act 2014. Since the passing of this Act the Leader of the Independent Group has always been a member of Parliament that is not affiliated with any political party or renounces his/her political party affiliation
to be an independent member.
The Political Party Integrity Act 2014 defines who is an independent member of Parliament. Whilst the Constitution makes mention of an independent member it does not define it nor does it give a definition of who can be the Leader of the Independent Group. Nor did it say that it can be a leader of a political party either. The Constitution does not say that it can either. In Transparency Solomon Islands view it is time to define or interpret these two by the Arm of the Government mandated to interpret our laws, including the interpretation of the Constitution and adjudication responsibilities, the Judiciary Arm of Government, the Courts. This is to ensure that all be at peace with the interpretation of this going forward. One might argue that our Constitution does not provide for or is silent on the application of the principle of separation of powers in Solomon Islands. TSI is of the view that the principle of separation of powers is clearly enshrined in our Constitution. Our Courts have clearly ruled on this, recognizing that the separation of powers of the three Arms of government (Executive, Legislature and Judiciary) is enshrined in the constitution and is applied in Solomon Islands, therefore the power of the Judicature must not be usurped by the Legislature nor the Executive.
To help with the development of our political party system and encourage candidates to contest under political party banners and reduce independent candidates, the Political Parties Act 2024 made provisions for an incentive to political parties called ‘administration grant’, whereby the political party will receive $20,000.00 for each of their winning candidates and an additional $10,000.00 for any woman candidate, this is paid annually. This fund or incentive is intended for meeting the administrative cost of their parties. The question that needs clearing now is that, “now that SIUP is the Independent Group, and the administrative cost of the Independent Office is being paid for by the Taxpayers of Solomon Islands will SIUP still be paid/receiving the $20,000.00/year for its member to support SIUP administrative cost too. Isn’t this double dipping? When SIUP is paid $20,000/year for members of its party, what becomes of those independent members
that are in the Independent Group who are not entitled to this incentive. Will they join SIUP or will they demand to be paid the $20,000.00 too because SIUP is receiving it. These are important questions that must be cleared to the public and taxpayers. The Independent Members of Parliament in studies written by various research entities and as revealed by nationwide consultation for the review and reform of the Political Parties Integrity Act 2014 overwhelmingly say that they are the main cause of political instability in Solomon Islands political system and for the country not going forward. They recommended that the provision in the Constitution for the Independent Group be removed to save cost and for country to move forward with political stability. The appointment of the leader of a political party is counter-productive to political stability as it will be manipulated by political parties who did not win the Executive Government. This needs addressing. In the Constitution it is clear what the roles and responsibilities of the Opposition Group is but it does not say what the role of the Independent Group is. The Solomon Islands United Party whilst it did not sign the much talked about CARE Coalition, it nevertheless joined this group to contest for the Prime Minister post. The
four political parties that formed this coalition were the three political parties that made up the CARE coalition (SIDP, DAP, U4C) and SIUP. A coalition agreement would satisfy the requirements of Schedule 2 to the Political Parties Act 2024 as was well reported and published by the media around late April 2024. Transparency Solomon Islands research into this shows that three Leaders from the Political parties under this Coalition Agreement were nominated as the Coalition candidate to contest the Prime Minister Post.
According to information given to Transparency Solomon Islands, they are Hon. Mathew Wale, Hon. Gordon Darcy Lilo and Hon. Peter Kenilorea. Through elimination process Hon. Mathew was chosen to contest on the Coalition’s behalf and was subsequently nominated by the SIUP leader together with three other members from their Coalition. Doesn’t this mean that SIUP did work with what is now the Official Opposition, having signed a Coalition Agreement to contest for the prime minister post? On the other hand, if there was no MOU signed with the Opposition as it is now alluded to, isn’t that gentlemen’s agreement proof that SIUP did work with parties in the Opposition? This also begs the question of, was the ‘grouping’ of parties back in April not in accordance to Schedule 2 of the Political Parties Integrity Act 2014? With regards to s66(2) and (7) of the Constitution, TSI is concerned with the vagueness of these provisions. It remains vague on the definition of who are the independent group of members of Parliament. Neither does the Political Party Integrity Act 2014 define independent member nor independent group by way of political party numerical strength. These are serious issues that must be addressed and clearly interpreted by our Judiciary Arm of Government. A clear interpretation of what constitute the ‘Independent Group of members of Parliament’ as oppose to “independent candidates and members of Parliament”. If the decision to appoint a political party leader as leader of the Independent Group along with members of his party is based on common practice, the common practice in Solomon Islands since the passing of the Political Parties Integrity Act 2014 is clear, shouldn’t this be the practice to be followed with regard to this appointment and not a practice from another country or other countries. Solomon Islands has a codified Constitution and the business of interpreting the
Constitution belongs to the Judiciary Arm of Government – Courts. Now that the question has been raised by public, the interpretation by the Courts of this provision in the Constitution, taking into account the Political Parties Integrity Act 2014 is needed. This will give the public peace of mind and put this to rest as well as for those involved to get on with the job. Public funds are involved, and people need the interpretation of the Courts regardless of the outcome. This practice sets out a dangerous precedent that totally undermines the intention of the Political Parties Integrity Act for political stability in the country. this provides a leeway
for party leaders to withdraw as party leader just so they can order the support from others form and claim ‘Leader of Independent group’.
This appointment contradicts the moral understanding of what the Political Party Integrity Act 2014 definition of what constitute an independent candidate. Whilst the Political Party Integrity Act defines ‘an independent candidate’, the Constitution gave a vague reference to independent group. To a layman this only works if one resigns their affiliation with a political party per PPIA Act 2014. Again, are the public to assume that SIUP will no longer exist as a political party to form the numerical strength to push their wing leader’s legality to be the leader of the Independent Group. With these many conflicting issues clarity is needed and whilst lawful needs scrutiny by the Courts. The country does not need three factions in the Parliament. The Executive Government and the Official Opposition have their specified role, the Independent Group does not. On the other hand, if Independent members are not removed, there must be stronger provisions and enforcement of laws to ensure that political parties forming coalitions to contest the prime minister position should remain as a coalition whereas independent members remain independent members of Parliament. The country does not have the resources to fund political factions who claim to be independent of Official Opposition and
the Executive being funded by taxpayers money. The country needs those resources for services to people and development of the country. More importantly in line with people’s demand and the need to assure our people of political stability Transparency Solomon Islands urges the GNUT led Executive Government to bring in a Bill to amend the Constitution and remove the Independent Group from the Constitution. The way forward is to amend the Constitution and remove Independent Group from it, define what an Independent Group of Members of Parliament, Independent candidate and/member and to reform the Political Parties Integrity Act
2014, defining these with strict provisions with regards to grasshopping.