icl

5(1)(K), the legislature made exceptions to the “equal treatment under the law or administrative action of all individuals to cover, females, children and young persons, members of under-privilege groups or inhabitants of less developed areas. with respect to sub-paragraphs 5(1)(k)(ii) of the Constitution Amendment, the exception to “equal treatment under the law or administrative action” also covers ‘purpose of economic development zone” (EDZ). the intention of the Constitution Amendment and in respect to Item 1A paragraph 5(1)(k)(ii) is to allow for laws that are much lenient to EDZ, with the view to promote economic development. based on paragraphs 2(a) to (e) above, denies that Item 1A of the Constitution Amendment in so far as the exception to equal treatment under the law or administrative action to cover “economic development Zone’ inftinges any of the fundamental rights and freedoms guaranteed and protected under Article 5 of the Constitution. it denies the Referral's reasoning that the added sub-paragraph 5(1)(k)(ii), on the EDZ to the Constitution is ambiguous on the alleged basis that, it has no connection to the protection of the rights of the vulnerable groups of people in 5(1)(k)(i) as amended. This is because the amendment to 5(1)(k) expands and/or categorised the exceptions to the equal treatment under the law or administrative action into two categories, those in sub PERRET Vi 5(1)(k)(i) and the EDZ in 5(1)(k)(ii); and 5 16. 17. 18. (iv) accordingly, the two exceptions in sub paragraph 5(1)(k)(i) and (ii) to the equal treatment under the law or administrative actions in Article 5(1)(k) should not interpret to have a connection as alleged. (iii) In respond to paragraph 3(d), says as per the case of Jean Paul Virelala v The Ombudsman [1997] the reference to ‘peace, order and good government of Vanuatu” does not limit the legislative making power under Article 16(1). And (iv) Otherwise says that Item 1A of the Constitution Amendment, Articles 5(1)(k) and 16(1) and (4) speak for themselves and will rely on them for their full terms and effect. In response to paragraph 5, says items 1, 2, 4, 4A, 5 and 6 in relation to other provisions of the Bill speak for themselves and will rely on them for their full terms and effect. In further answer to the Amended Referral, the Respondent says that - (a) Article 5(1)(k) and as repealed and substituted as Item 1A paragraph 5(1)(k)(i) in the Constitution Amendment, protects the individual rights to equal treatment under the law and administrative action, except that no law shall be inconsistent with the sub-paragraphs in so far as it makes provisions for special benefit, welfare protection or advancement of groups of persons including, females, children and young persons, members of under- privilege groups or inhabitants of less developed areas; (b) by the substituted provision in the Constitution Amendment, item 1A paragraph 5(1)(k)(ii), the legislature added “Economic Development Zone” (EDZ) and which effect is for the exception to equal treatment under the law or administrative action as applicable to the vulnerable groups of persons in Article 5(1)(k) to also cover EDZ. (c) Article 16(1) empowers the Parliament to make laws for the peace, order and good government of Vanuatu, and is subordinate to Article 16(4) that such laws can only be promulgated if the Supreme Court does not consider it inconsistent with a provision of the Constitution, once the matter is referred to the Supreme Court for its opinion under Article 16(4). (d) The insertion under Article 5(1)(k)(ii) to allow for preferential treatment, for the ‘purpose of economic development zone” does not infringe any of the fundamental rights and freedoms guaranteed by Article 5 of the Constitution. (e) Says that based on the above paragraphs, denies that the phrase ‘for the purpose of economic development zone” is ambiguous; and (f Says the Amended referral is misconceived and must be dismissed. The Response to the Amended Referral is supported by the sworn statements of Joe Junior Natuman, Acting Parliamentary Counsel, Office of the Attorney General and Maxim Banga, Clerk of Parliament both filed on 22 August 2025. ase “OE VA VANGZ ry 6 ee, e goon “f Ha 58 count gupREMe me fel ak Vi. Issue 19. Is the Bill [Item 1A] inconsistent with Article 5(1)(k) and Article 16(1) of the Constitution? Court considerations 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. The question for the Court to determine is this - Is the bill [Item 1A] inconsistent with