 |  2023: Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka met with his counterpart from Solomon Islands Prime Minister Manasseh Sogavare MP at the margins of Special Leaders Retreat Monday 27th Feb 2023. The two leaders acknowledged the longstanding bilateral relations between the two nations and reaffirmed their commitment to work closely to advance regional solidarity and cooperation in mutual areas of interests and priorities. |
 |  |
 |   |
Anthony Regan’s official biography records constitutional work in Solomon Islands but there is no evidence that he advised its Government to extend Parliament’s life or that he had any involvement in the court proceedings upholding the postponement.
Regan’s official Australian National University profile records that he has worked in several post-conflict constitutional processes, including in Solomon Islands and Fiji.
That experience acquires particular significance as Fiji’s Coalition Government prepares to take the Constitutional Review Commission’s Report and Draft Constitution through Parliament.
It does not, however, establish that Regan advised the former Solomon Islands Government to postpone its 2023 general election. Nor is there presently any evidence that he helped to draft the constitutional amendment which extended the life of the Solomon Islands Parliament, or that he participated in the subsequent litigation.
Those distinctions must be made clear.
The relevant question is not whether Regan personally carried the Solomon Islands precedent to Fiji. It is whether Fiji’s Coalition Government, now supported by constitutional advisers with extensive regional experience, might look to the Solomon Islands judgment as legal and political cover if it decides that the next Fijian general election should be delayed while the proposed new Constitution is considered or introduced.
That possibility should be examined before, rather than after, any postponement is announced.
What happened in Solomon Islands? The Solomon Islands Constitution ordinarily provided for Parliament to continue for four years from the date of its first sitting, unless dissolved earlier.
The national general election was consequently expected in 2023. The Government of Prime Minister Manasseh Sogavare argued, however, that Solomon Islands could not afford to conduct a general election in the same year that it was hosting the Pacific Games.
Instead of simply announcing a postponement by executive decision, Sogavare’s Government introduced the Constitution (Amendment) Bill 2022.
The legislation temporarily suspended the ordinary constitutional provision governing the life of Parliament. It provided that the eleventh Parliament would end and stand dissolved on 31 December 2023. The suspension would then terminate, and the ordinary constitutional provision would resume operation.
The stated object of the Bill was explicit: “The purpose of the Constitution (Amendment) Bill 2022 is to defer the National General Election of the twelfth Parliament until after the Pacific Games 2023.”
The measure was strongly criticised. Opponents argued that a government should not be permitted to extend its own term merely because conducting an election at the constitutionally appointed time was politically, administratively or financially inconvenient.
The amendment nevertheless passed through Parliament. The election was postponed and eventually held on 17 April 2024.
The constitutional challenge
John Kuku, then Leader of the Independent Members of Parliament, challenged the legality of the extension in the Solomon Islands High Court.
He sought declarations that the constitutional amendment was unconstitutional, invalid and of no effect. The defendants applied to have his claim struck out.
On 6 September 2023, the High Court struck out the proceedings. According to the Solomon Islands Government’s account, the Court found that the claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action and was frivolous and vexatious.
The result was subsequently presented by the Government under the emphatic headline: “No constitutional contravention.”
That headline should not be misunderstood. The judgment did not establish a general principle that a Pacific government may delay an election whenever it finds the timing inconvenient.
The Solomon Islands Parliament had enacted a specific constitutional amendment through the machinery provided by its Constitution. The legal question was therefore whether that amendment itself was constitutionally defective, not whether the Executive possessed some free-standing power to ignore the existing constitutional term.
That distinction is central to any comparison with Fiji.
Could Fiji attempt something similar?
The Coalition Government is now advancing a constitutional process while the country moves closer to its next general election.
The CRC has completed its work. Its Report and the Draft Constitution of the Republic of Fiji 2026 were formally presented to President Ratu Naiqama Lalabalavu at State House. The documents are now entering the governmental and parliamentary process.
A previously announced timetable contemplated the possibility of a new constitutional arrangement by 24 December 2026.
That timing immediately raises a difficult question: what happens if the Government says that there is insufficient time to debate, enact and implement a new Constitution before the next election?
It might argue that the election should proceed under the 2013 Constitution and that constitutional reform can continue afterwards. That would be the constitutionally safer course.
It might alternatively argue that an election held under institutions which the proposed Constitution seeks to replace would be wasteful, disruptive or inconsistent with the transition to a new constitutional order.
From there, the political case for postponement would be predictable. The Government could say that electoral legislation must be rewritten; constituencies or parliamentary structures must be reorganised; the Electoral Commission needs more time; voter education must be conducted; or transitional provisions cannot be implemented before the election falls due.
The new Draft Constitution might itself contain transitional provisions extending the existing Parliament or postponing the election.
It is that possibility which makes the Solomon Islands precedent relevant.
But Fiji is not Solomon Islands
The two constitutional systems are not interchangeable. Solomon Islands postponed its election through a temporary constitutional amendment enacted by Parliament under its existing constitutional machinery. The amendment identified the affected provision, prescribed the period of suspension and contained an expiry arrangement.
Fiji’s 2013 Constitution contains its own amendment procedure, principally in sections 159 and 160. That procedure establishes demanding parliamentary and referendum requirements.
The Coalition Government cannot simply cite the Solomon Islands judgment and claim an equivalent authority to extend the life of Fiji’s Parliament.
Before any comparison could assist the Government, it would have to answer several preliminary questions:
The Solomon Islands decision does not answer those questions for Fiji.
Regan’s regional experience makes transparency more important. Regan’s ANU biography states that he has been involved in constitutional or peace processes in Uganda, Bougainville, East Timor, Solomon Islands and Fiji.
That breadth of experience helps to explain why the Coalition Government or the CRC may have sought his assistance.
It also reinforces the need for him to disclose the precise nature of his Fiji assignment.
In July, Fijileaks asked Regan whether he had advised the Government on the constitutional amendment threshold, whether the 2013 Constitution could lawfully be replaced without compliance with its amendment procedure, and what safeguards protected the independence of his advice.
He neither acknowledged nor answered those questions.
One additional question must now be asked: Has Regan advised the Coalition Government, the Attorney-General’s Office or the CRC about postponing Fiji’s next general election, extending the life of the present Parliament, or using transitional provisions in the Draft Constitution to achieve either result?
A second question follows: Has the Solomon Islands constitutional amendment or the High Court decision in Kuku’s case been discussed as a possible precedent for Fiji?
There is presently no evidence that Regan advised the Sogavare Government on the Solomon Islands postponement. It would therefore be wrong to attribute that decision to him merely because his biography records work in that country.
But his silence about the scope of his Fiji assignment leaves unanswered whether his regional constitutional experience, including his familiarity with Solomon Islands, has informed any advice given on Fiji’s electoral timetable.
A court decision is not a political blank cheque
The Solomon Islands case may appear attractive to a government seeking more time. Parliament amended the Constitution, the election was delayed, and the High Court rejected the challenge.
But the legal victory did not erase the democratic controversy.
The power to determine the date on which citizens may remove their government goes to the heart of representative democracy. When sitting members extend their own tenure, they are direct beneficiaries of the constitutional decision they are making.
Even where the necessary parliamentary votes can be assembled, legality and democratic legitimacy are not necessarily the same thing.
A government elected for a constitutionally defined term should not receive additional time in office merely because it has embarked upon a constitutional project which it cannot complete before that term expires.
Nor should constitutional reform become the instrument through which the people’s right to vote is deferred.
Fiji needs an unequivocal assurance
The Coalition Government should now state plainly whether the next general election will be held within the timetable prescribed by the 2013 Constitution.
It should also disclose whether the CRC Report, the Draft Constitution or any transitional proposal contemplates:
If none of these proposals exists, the Government should have no difficulty giving an unequivocal assurance.
If such a proposal does exist, it must be published immediately and subjected to public, parliamentary and judicial scrutiny.
The Solomon Islands judgment cannot be treated as a transferable licence to postpone Fiji’s election. It arose from a particular amendment to a different Constitution, enacted within a different legal framework.
Fiji’s Constitution belongs to the people. So does their right to decide, at the constitutionally appointed time, who governs them.
Questions for Anthony Regan on his role in Fiji’s constitutional review, copied to Siromi Turaqa and Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka
Anthony Regan, Bula
Recent public statements by Acting Attorney-General Siromi Turaga indicate that you are working with constitutional drafters in the Attorney-General’s Office on a proposed new Constitution for Fiji. In the interests of transparency and informed public debate, Fijileaks respectfully invites you to respond to the following questions:
Fijileaks invited Regan to respond in the interests of promoting an informed, balanced and transparent national discussion on constitutional reform.
He never acknowledged the correspondence and did not answer any of the questions.
The Draft Constitution has now been completed. Regan’s role has been officially acknowledged. His opportunity to answer remains open.
Regan’s official Australian National University profile records that he has worked in several post-conflict constitutional processes, including in Solomon Islands and Fiji.
That experience acquires particular significance as Fiji’s Coalition Government prepares to take the Constitutional Review Commission’s Report and Draft Constitution through Parliament.
It does not, however, establish that Regan advised the former Solomon Islands Government to postpone its 2023 general election. Nor is there presently any evidence that he helped to draft the constitutional amendment which extended the life of the Solomon Islands Parliament, or that he participated in the subsequent litigation.
Those distinctions must be made clear.
The relevant question is not whether Regan personally carried the Solomon Islands precedent to Fiji. It is whether Fiji’s Coalition Government, now supported by constitutional advisers with extensive regional experience, might look to the Solomon Islands judgment as legal and political cover if it decides that the next Fijian general election should be delayed while the proposed new Constitution is considered or introduced.
That possibility should be examined before, rather than after, any postponement is announced.
What happened in Solomon Islands? The Solomon Islands Constitution ordinarily provided for Parliament to continue for four years from the date of its first sitting, unless dissolved earlier.
The national general election was consequently expected in 2023. The Government of Prime Minister Manasseh Sogavare argued, however, that Solomon Islands could not afford to conduct a general election in the same year that it was hosting the Pacific Games.
Instead of simply announcing a postponement by executive decision, Sogavare’s Government introduced the Constitution (Amendment) Bill 2022.
The legislation temporarily suspended the ordinary constitutional provision governing the life of Parliament. It provided that the eleventh Parliament would end and stand dissolved on 31 December 2023. The suspension would then terminate, and the ordinary constitutional provision would resume operation.
The stated object of the Bill was explicit: “The purpose of the Constitution (Amendment) Bill 2022 is to defer the National General Election of the twelfth Parliament until after the Pacific Games 2023.”
The measure was strongly criticised. Opponents argued that a government should not be permitted to extend its own term merely because conducting an election at the constitutionally appointed time was politically, administratively or financially inconvenient.
The amendment nevertheless passed through Parliament. The election was postponed and eventually held on 17 April 2024.
The constitutional challenge
John Kuku, then Leader of the Independent Members of Parliament, challenged the legality of the extension in the Solomon Islands High Court.
He sought declarations that the constitutional amendment was unconstitutional, invalid and of no effect. The defendants applied to have his claim struck out.
On 6 September 2023, the High Court struck out the proceedings. According to the Solomon Islands Government’s account, the Court found that the claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action and was frivolous and vexatious.
The result was subsequently presented by the Government under the emphatic headline: “No constitutional contravention.”
That headline should not be misunderstood. The judgment did not establish a general principle that a Pacific government may delay an election whenever it finds the timing inconvenient.
The Solomon Islands Parliament had enacted a specific constitutional amendment through the machinery provided by its Constitution. The legal question was therefore whether that amendment itself was constitutionally defective, not whether the Executive possessed some free-standing power to ignore the existing constitutional term.
That distinction is central to any comparison with Fiji.
Could Fiji attempt something similar?
The Coalition Government is now advancing a constitutional process while the country moves closer to its next general election.
The CRC has completed its work. Its Report and the Draft Constitution of the Republic of Fiji 2026 were formally presented to President Ratu Naiqama Lalabalavu at State House. The documents are now entering the governmental and parliamentary process.
A previously announced timetable contemplated the possibility of a new constitutional arrangement by 24 December 2026.
That timing immediately raises a difficult question: what happens if the Government says that there is insufficient time to debate, enact and implement a new Constitution before the next election?
It might argue that the election should proceed under the 2013 Constitution and that constitutional reform can continue afterwards. That would be the constitutionally safer course.
It might alternatively argue that an election held under institutions which the proposed Constitution seeks to replace would be wasteful, disruptive or inconsistent with the transition to a new constitutional order.
From there, the political case for postponement would be predictable. The Government could say that electoral legislation must be rewritten; constituencies or parliamentary structures must be reorganised; the Electoral Commission needs more time; voter education must be conducted; or transitional provisions cannot be implemented before the election falls due.
The new Draft Constitution might itself contain transitional provisions extending the existing Parliament or postponing the election.
It is that possibility which makes the Solomon Islands precedent relevant.
But Fiji is not Solomon Islands
The two constitutional systems are not interchangeable. Solomon Islands postponed its election through a temporary constitutional amendment enacted by Parliament under its existing constitutional machinery. The amendment identified the affected provision, prescribed the period of suspension and contained an expiry arrangement.
Fiji’s 2013 Constitution contains its own amendment procedure, principally in sections 159 and 160. That procedure establishes demanding parliamentary and referendum requirements.
The Coalition Government cannot simply cite the Solomon Islands judgment and claim an equivalent authority to extend the life of Fiji’s Parliament.
Before any comparison could assist the Government, it would have to answer several preliminary questions:
- Has the 2013 Constitution been lawfully amended according to its own requirements?
- Can a new Constitution validly displace the existing Constitution without compliance with sections 159 and 160?
- Would transitional provisions extending Parliament’s term amount, in substance, to an unconstitutional avoidance of the electorate?
- Can members of Parliament lawfully vote themselves additional time in office under a constitutional process whose legitimacy remains contested?
- Would the courts regard such an extension as a valid constitutional act or as an attempt to retain political power beyond the term conferred by the electorate?
The Solomon Islands decision does not answer those questions for Fiji.
Regan’s regional experience makes transparency more important. Regan’s ANU biography states that he has been involved in constitutional or peace processes in Uganda, Bougainville, East Timor, Solomon Islands and Fiji.
That breadth of experience helps to explain why the Coalition Government or the CRC may have sought his assistance.
It also reinforces the need for him to disclose the precise nature of his Fiji assignment.
In July, Fijileaks asked Regan whether he had advised the Government on the constitutional amendment threshold, whether the 2013 Constitution could lawfully be replaced without compliance with its amendment procedure, and what safeguards protected the independence of his advice.
He neither acknowledged nor answered those questions.
One additional question must now be asked: Has Regan advised the Coalition Government, the Attorney-General’s Office or the CRC about postponing Fiji’s next general election, extending the life of the present Parliament, or using transitional provisions in the Draft Constitution to achieve either result?
A second question follows: Has the Solomon Islands constitutional amendment or the High Court decision in Kuku’s case been discussed as a possible precedent for Fiji?
There is presently no evidence that Regan advised the Sogavare Government on the Solomon Islands postponement. It would therefore be wrong to attribute that decision to him merely because his biography records work in that country.
But his silence about the scope of his Fiji assignment leaves unanswered whether his regional constitutional experience, including his familiarity with Solomon Islands, has informed any advice given on Fiji’s electoral timetable.
A court decision is not a political blank cheque
The Solomon Islands case may appear attractive to a government seeking more time. Parliament amended the Constitution, the election was delayed, and the High Court rejected the challenge.
But the legal victory did not erase the democratic controversy.
The power to determine the date on which citizens may remove their government goes to the heart of representative democracy. When sitting members extend their own tenure, they are direct beneficiaries of the constitutional decision they are making.
Even where the necessary parliamentary votes can be assembled, legality and democratic legitimacy are not necessarily the same thing.
A government elected for a constitutionally defined term should not receive additional time in office merely because it has embarked upon a constitutional project which it cannot complete before that term expires.
Nor should constitutional reform become the instrument through which the people’s right to vote is deferred.
Fiji needs an unequivocal assurance
The Coalition Government should now state plainly whether the next general election will be held within the timetable prescribed by the 2013 Constitution.
It should also disclose whether the CRC Report, the Draft Constitution or any transitional proposal contemplates:
- extending the present Parliament’s term;
- postponing the dissolution of Parliament;
- delaying the issue of the election writ;
- holding the election under a new timetable; or
- allowing the present Government to remain in office while new constitutional arrangements are implemented.
If none of these proposals exists, the Government should have no difficulty giving an unequivocal assurance.
If such a proposal does exist, it must be published immediately and subjected to public, parliamentary and judicial scrutiny.
The Solomon Islands judgment cannot be treated as a transferable licence to postpone Fiji’s election. It arose from a particular amendment to a different Constitution, enacted within a different legal framework.
Fiji’s Constitution belongs to the people. So does their right to decide, at the constitutionally appointed time, who governs them.
Questions for Anthony Regan on his role in Fiji’s constitutional review, copied to Siromi Turaqa and Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka
Anthony Regan, Bula
Recent public statements by Acting Attorney-General Siromi Turaga indicate that you are working with constitutional drafters in the Attorney-General’s Office on a proposed new Constitution for Fiji. In the interests of transparency and informed public debate, Fijileaks respectfully invites you to respond to the following questions:
- When were you first approached by the Coalition Government, or by any representative of the Government, regarding participation in Fiji’s constitutional review process?
- Who formally invited you to participate, and under what authority was that invitation made?
- What is your official role? Are you serving as a consultant, adviser, constitutional expert, member of a drafting team, or in another capacity?
- Are you working under a written contract? If so, will that contract or your terms of reference be made public?
- Are you being remunerated for your work? If so, who is funding your engagement, and what are the financial arrangements?
- When did you commence work on the constitutional review?
- How many visits have you made to Fiji in connection with this assignment?
- Have you already contributed to the drafting of any constitutional provisions? If so, which areas of the proposed Constitution have you been asked to advise upon?
- Have you prepared any reports, memoranda, discussion papers or draft constitutional text? If so, will these documents be released to the public?
- To whom do you report in the course of your work - the Acting Attorney-General, Cabinet, the Constitutional Review Commission, or another body?
- Have you met Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka regarding the constitutional review? If so, how many times and what matters were discussed?
- Have you consulted any political parties, civil society organisations, trade unions, faith groups, business organisations or community representatives outside Government?
- How do you respond to concerns that, because you have publicly criticised significant aspects of the 2013 Constitution over many years, your appointment may create a perception that the outcome of the review has been substantially predetermined?
- Do you consider yourself able to approach the drafting process with complete impartiality despite your previously published academic criticisms of the 2013 Constitution?
- In your view, what aspects of the 2013 Constitution continue to serve Fiji well and should be retained?
- Which provisions of the 2013 Constitution do you believe require amendment, and why?
- Have you advised Government regarding the constitutional immunity provisions? If so, what principles have guided your advice?
- Have you discussed the constitutional amendment threshold contained in section 160 of the 2013 Constitution with Government?
- Have you offered advice on whether the existing Constitution can lawfully be replaced without complying with its amendment procedures?
- Will the Draft Constitution be published before it is presented to Parliament, allowing sufficient time for public scrutiny and comment?
- Do you believe Fiji should adopt an entirely new Constitution or amend the existing 2013 Constitution? What constitutional principles support your preferred approach?
- What safeguards are in place to ensure that your advice remains independent of the political objectives of the Government of the day?
- If your recommendations are not accepted by Government, will you disclose the nature of your advice once the constitutional process has concluded?
- Looking back, do you stand by your previous public criticisms of the 2013 Constitution, or have any of your views evolved?
- Finally, do you accept that, because constitutions belong to the people rather than governments, the public is entitled to full transparency regarding the identity, role and influence of everyone involved in drafting Fiji’s next Constitution?
Fijileaks invited Regan to respond in the interests of promoting an informed, balanced and transparent national discussion on constitutional reform.
He never acknowledged the correspondence and did not answer any of the questions.
The Draft Constitution has now been completed. Regan’s role has been officially acknowledged. His opportunity to answer remains open.
 |  |
The High Court today (6 September 2023) ruled that the Claim filed by the Leader of the Independent Members was frivolous and vexatious, discloses no reasonable cause of action and is an abuse of the Court process and accordingly struck out the Claim High Court in the civil case no. 313 of 2023.
In delivering his ruling, His Lordship the Chief Justice Sir Albert Palmer held that contrary to the assertions of the Claimant, the interpretation of section 61(3) of the Constitution required Parliament to pass the Constitutional (Amendment) 2022 Act on both the second and third readings with a majority of two-thirds of Members of Parliament.
The High Court held that the contention that there should be two separate readings on the third reading was simply not what the Constitution intended.
In giving out the judgement, Chief Justice Sir Albert Palmer also held that the Claimant as a matter of procedure failed to object during the process in which constitution (amendment bill) 2022 was tabled to suspend section 73 (3) of the constitution to allow parliament to continue till 31st December 2023. The Claimant instead chose to participate in the Parliamentary proceedings in which the Claimant voted “no” in both readings.
“Having failed to make such objection he is estopped from coming to this court for relief as he cannot demonstrate that his rights under the constitution had been contravened and his interests affected or likely to be affected by such contraventions”, the Chief Justice stated.
Chief Justice Albert Palmer stated that the parliament is the right forum to hear the claimant’s issue, and should the claimant raised the matter it could have been addressed there and then.
The Chief Justice added that “…even if there is to be any relief given the most this court can do would be to refer the matter back to Parliament to resolve the issue”.
The Chief Justice further held that should the claimant raised his belief that the process of passing the constitutional (amendment bill) 2022 has affected his rights, then the claimant’s rights would have been taken to the court for redress.
With regard to the issue of delay, the Chief Justice stated that “the issue of failing to object is related to this issue of delay or sleeping on his rights if any…any litigant must be vigilant and run to the courts where that is required”.
The Chief Justice quoted the maxim “the vigilant, not the sleeping, are aided by the laws” adding that “even in the event that the application is granted in his favor, time has lapsed, it took the claimant not less than 10 months (293 days) before having his claim filed in court on 28 June 2023…”
“The time frame is simply an impossibility now and so raises the practical question as to what if any purpose to be achieved by this claim,” Sir Albert Palmer stated.
The Attorney-General having received the judgment and briefed the Executive has received new instructions.
“After briefing the Executive, I now hold instructions to seek declaratory Orders in the High Court of Solomon Islands whether Members of Parliament who voted ‘No’ on September 6, 2022, were effectively on 15th May, 2023, no longer Members of Parliament and whether having ceased being Members of Parliament on 15th May, 2023, were no longer entitled to receive benefits accrued by Members of Parliament and that any benefits acquired thereafter from the state shall be refunded in full to the State”.
The Claimant was represented by Counsel Billy Titiulu whilst the Hon. Speaker was represented by Timothy Matthews KC and the Prime Minister and the Governor-General were represented by the Attorney-General.
In delivering his ruling, His Lordship the Chief Justice Sir Albert Palmer held that contrary to the assertions of the Claimant, the interpretation of section 61(3) of the Constitution required Parliament to pass the Constitutional (Amendment) 2022 Act on both the second and third readings with a majority of two-thirds of Members of Parliament.
The High Court held that the contention that there should be two separate readings on the third reading was simply not what the Constitution intended.
In giving out the judgement, Chief Justice Sir Albert Palmer also held that the Claimant as a matter of procedure failed to object during the process in which constitution (amendment bill) 2022 was tabled to suspend section 73 (3) of the constitution to allow parliament to continue till 31st December 2023. The Claimant instead chose to participate in the Parliamentary proceedings in which the Claimant voted “no” in both readings.
“Having failed to make such objection he is estopped from coming to this court for relief as he cannot demonstrate that his rights under the constitution had been contravened and his interests affected or likely to be affected by such contraventions”, the Chief Justice stated.
Chief Justice Albert Palmer stated that the parliament is the right forum to hear the claimant’s issue, and should the claimant raised the matter it could have been addressed there and then.
The Chief Justice added that “…even if there is to be any relief given the most this court can do would be to refer the matter back to Parliament to resolve the issue”.
The Chief Justice further held that should the claimant raised his belief that the process of passing the constitutional (amendment bill) 2022 has affected his rights, then the claimant’s rights would have been taken to the court for redress.
With regard to the issue of delay, the Chief Justice stated that “the issue of failing to object is related to this issue of delay or sleeping on his rights if any…any litigant must be vigilant and run to the courts where that is required”.
The Chief Justice quoted the maxim “the vigilant, not the sleeping, are aided by the laws” adding that “even in the event that the application is granted in his favor, time has lapsed, it took the claimant not less than 10 months (293 days) before having his claim filed in court on 28 June 2023…”
“The time frame is simply an impossibility now and so raises the practical question as to what if any purpose to be achieved by this claim,” Sir Albert Palmer stated.
The Attorney-General having received the judgment and briefed the Executive has received new instructions.
“After briefing the Executive, I now hold instructions to seek declaratory Orders in the High Court of Solomon Islands whether Members of Parliament who voted ‘No’ on September 6, 2022, were effectively on 15th May, 2023, no longer Members of Parliament and whether having ceased being Members of Parliament on 15th May, 2023, were no longer entitled to receive benefits accrued by Members of Parliament and that any benefits acquired thereafter from the state shall be refunded in full to the State”.
The Claimant was represented by Counsel Billy Titiulu whilst the Hon. Speaker was represented by Timothy Matthews KC and the Prime Minister and the Governor-General were represented by the Attorney-General.
