SUPREME COURT REJECTS OPPOSITION CHALLENGE TO VONC AMMENDMENT

BY NIGEL MADO

The Supreme Court has dismissed a constitutional challenge brought by Opposition Leader James Nomane against Constitutional Amendment No. 48, allowing the controversial 18-month restriction on motions of no confidence to remain in force.

In a ruling delivered by a five-man bench comprising Justices David Cannings, Manuhu, Derek Hartshorn, Yagi and Makail, the Court refused to grant standing to the applicant under Section 18(1) of the Constitution and dismissed the proceedings.
The case challenged amendments to Section 145 of the Constitution introduced through the Constitutional Amendment No. 48 (Motions of No Confidence) Law 2025.

The amendment prevents another motion of no confidence from being moved for 18 months following an unsuccessful motion against the Prime Minister or government.

The Opposition had argued the amendment was unconstitutional, claiming it restricted parliamentary rights under Section 50 of the Constitution, weakened parliamentary oversight of the Executive Government and conflicted with democratic principles. The application also sought declarations relating to the rejection of a notice of motion of no confidence dated October 29, 2025.

However, the Supreme Court ruled the issues raised were no longer significant constitutional questions because similar matters had already been determined in previous Section 18(1) applications. Stating that the same relief had previously been sought on substantially identical grounds, making the present application unsuitable for further constitutional review.

The ruling effectively leaves the amendment fully operational and represents a major legal victory for the government ahead of the 2027 National Election.

The Speaker of Parliament and the Attorney-General had joined the proceedings as interveners and had raised objections to the competency of the application.
The Court ultimately dismissed the proceedings on the grounds that the applicant lacked standing and that the application itself was frivolous and an abuse of process.