icl

“(1) Parliament may make laws for the peace, order and good government of Vanuatu. (2) Parliament shall make laws by passing bills introduced either by one or more members or by the Prime Minister or a Minister. (3) when a bill had been passed by Parliament it shall be presented to the President of the Republic who shall assent to it within 2 weeks. (4) if the President considers that the bill is inconsistent with a provision of the consistent, he shall refer it to the Supreme Court for its opinion. The bill shall not be promulgated if the Supreme Court considers it inconsistent with a provision of the Constitution.”. Item 1A of the Constitution (Ninth) (Amendment) Act No. 7 of 2025 (“the Bil’) under challenge provides: “1A Paragraph 5(1)(k) Repeal the paragraph, substitute (k) equal treatment under the law or administration action, except that no law shall be inconsistent with this sub-paragraph in so far as it makes provision for the: (i) Special benefit, welfare, protection or advancement of females, children and young persons, members of under- privilege groups or inhabitants of less developed areas; and (ii) Purpose of economic development zones.” A. Is the Bill [Item 1A] inconsistent with Article 5(1)(k) 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. | deal first with the first aspect of the issue. The RA says that Article 5(1)(k) of the Constitution talks about “equal treatment under the law or administrative action”. It is part of the fundamental rights and freedoms of the individuals provided under Article 5. The RA says that the fundamental rights and freedoms under the Constitution are not absolute and may be granted subject to restrictions. The RA says that Article 5(1)(k) recognises and allows the exceptions for a law relating to special benefit, welfare, protection or advancement of females, children and young persons, member of under-privilege groups or inhabitants of less developed areas. The fundamental rights and freedoms relate to individuals or persons. The RA submitted that the inclusion of a new category under Article 5(1)(k)(ii) “purpose of economic development zones’ is ambiguous because it does not relate to individuals or persons. It speaks of a concept connected to foreign investment and taxation policies. The RA submitted that Item 1A of the Bill is inconsistent with Article 5(1)(k) of the Constitution. The Constitution must be interpreted sui-generis, unique species of its own based on Kilman v Speaker of Parliament [2011] VUCA 15. The Constitution cannot be treated as an act of Parliament. The RA submitted that if there is any ambiguity, the Court will consider the context of