[2407.HQ] Resigning with Pending Nominations

High Court
1

Your honors,

I come to you today to submit a Legal Question as per Article 4 of the Judicial Act. As a current member of the South Pacific, I have standing to submit such a question in accordance with Article 4, Section 2 of the Judicial Act.

My question is: Does an appointment made by an appointer become official upon nomination to or upon confirmation by the Assembly?

For context, Former Prime Minister @lordnwahs surprised the region by suddenly resigning earlier today. While the resignation itself is not the main focus of this legal question, it has, in my opinion, raised the question of whether their pending nomination of @ConcreteSlab to the Admiralty was invalidated.

Just before the beginning of the current Cabinet term, the then-incoming Prime Minister was met with an unforeseen roadblock when the Chair of the Assembly, @BlockBuster2K43, ruled that the incoming Prime Minister did not have the statutory authority to officially make nominations/appointments as they were not yet Prime Minister. In this case, the region waited a few days for the issue to resolve itself. However, the issue appears to have arisen again in a reverse format.

In conclusion, since the Prime Minister resigned before the conclusion and certification of the nomination vote by the Chair of the Assembly, the nomination was thus invalidated, regardless of the final vote in the Assembly.

I thank the Court for its time and make myself available to answer any questions.

2

Your honors,

I respectfully request a Notice of Reception and Determination of Justiciability issued post haste. It has been five days since this case was submitted, which is well outside the recommended guidelines given for case management.

3

I apologise. I’ve been travelling this weekend and my memory failed me on this case. A notice will be forthcoming in the next few hours.

4
High Court of the South Pacific

Notice of Reception

Let this serve as notice that this petition has been received by the High Court and has been assigned the following identifying information:

Docket Number
2407.HQ

Reference Name
Resigning with Pending Nominations

Request
Does an appointment made by an appointer become official upon nomination to or upon confirmation by the Assembly?

Submission: 17 September 2024

5

Your honors,

I respectfully request the determination of justiciability. It has been ten days since the notice of reception was released.

6
HIGH COURT OF THE SOUTH PACIFIC
[2407.HQ] Resigning with Pending Nominations

Whereas this Court has been asked to exercise the judicial power vested in it by the Charter of the South Pacific, it is resolved that:

  1. This case is not justiciable.

  2. The petitioner may request the Court to provide an account of the reasons that led to this determination no later than 2024-10-07T14:00:00Z.

Submission: 17 Sep 2024 | Determination: 03 Oct 2024
7

Your honors,

I request an in-chambers opinion on the reasoning for the determination that the case was not justiciable.

8
HIGH COURT OF THE SOUTH PACIFIC
[2407.HQ] Resigning with Pending Nominations

Chief Justice Kringle on behalf of the High Court.

Petitioner requested the Court to determine whether the time at which an appointment becomes effective, adding as context a scenario where the appointing official ceases to hold their office before the Assembly may confirm or reject the appointment.

Upon detailed review and discussion the Court has concluded that the questions presented to it do not meet the threshold to constitute a legal question given that they do not ask the Court to interpret a given provision of law or ascertain the applicability of certain scenarios to a provision of law. To the extent that the Court must deal in the interpretation of laws, the Court cannot admit a question that does not refer to the laws that would apply to a given scenario.

Submission: 17 Sep 2024 | Determination: 03 Oct 2024 | In-Chambers Opinion: 03 Oct 2024