The Pangu-led Marape-Rosso Government will continue to serve its full tenure in office following the Supreme Court which has dismissed a constitutional challenge against Papua New Guinea’s amended Vote of No Confidence (VONC) law.
In a 23-page verdict, the court has effectively upheld the controversial 18-month restriction on future motions after a failed attempt to remove a Prime Minister.
Related news: https://news.pngfacts.com/2026/05/high-court-throws-out-png-opposition.html
The case, brought by Opposition Leader James Nomane, challenged Constitutional Amendment No. 48 of 2025, which prevents Members of Parliament from moving another Vote of No Confidence for 18 months after an unsuccessful motion.
Mr. Nomane through his lawyers argued that the amendment weakened Parliament’s oversight powers and undermined democratic accountability by limiting MPs’ constitutional rights to challenge the Executive Government.
However, the Supreme Court ruled that the issues raised had already been determined in previous constitutional cases involving similar challenges by Allan Bird and Nomane himself.
The Court found that the latest application did not raise any new or significant constitutional questions and therefore had “no reasonable prospect of success.”
In a strong ruling, the Court described the proceedings as frivolous and an abuse of court process because they attempted to relitigate matters that had already been settled by the judiciary.
As a result, the Court refused standing to Nomane and dismissed the application entirely.
The ruling now reinforces the constitutional amendment and confirms that once a Vote of No Confidence fails in Parliament, another motion cannot be introduced for the next 18 months.
The decision is expected to strengthen political stability for sitting governments while also drawing criticism from opponents who believe the law restricts Parliament’s ability to hold the Prime Minister accountable.
One of the judges, Justice Makail, agreed that the case should be dismissed but expressed concern about the amount of court time spent on procedural arguments, suggesting some issues could have been resolved more efficiently.