I’ve already written a detailed article explaining the real meaning of Article 27 — how it works within the broader constitutional framework and why it doesn’t override Article 17A and 17B. Yet, after reading the latest piece from VBTC, where the Leader of the Opposition again presents his perception of Article 27, it’s hard not to wonder whether some voices are debating the Constitution without actually studying it. The public deserves clarity, not confusion — and that’s exactly what my previous analysis, backed by an AI-lawyer judicial interpretation, aimed to provide.
AI-lawyer-style judicial interpretation of the constitutional question between Article 17 and Article 27 of Vanuatu’s Constitution, written as if it were reasoning from the bench:
Judicial Interpretation — Articles 17 and 27 of the Constitution of the Republic of Vanuatu
Issue before the Court:
Whether the constitutional amendment to Article 17—requiring Members of Parliament (MPs) to follow the directions of their political party to avoid a seat vacancy—contradicts or limits the guarantees contained in Article 27, which protects the freedom of speech, debate, and vote of MPs inside Parliament.
1️⃣ Nature and Purpose of Article 17
Article 17 (as amended by the 2024 Referendum) establishes that an MP who fails to follow the direction of his or her political party on matters determined by that party risks vacating the seat.
Its intent is to strengthen political stability by ensuring disciplined voting and consistent policy direction within the legislature, preventing frequent votes of no confidence and “revolving-door” governments.
Thus, Article 17 creates a constitutional obligation of party loyalty where a member’s mandate is partly exercised through collective party responsibility.
2️⃣ Nature and Purpose of Article 27
Article 27 protects Parliamentary privilege: an MP “shall not be liable to any proceedings in any court for anything said or any vote given in Parliament.”
This article safeguards freedom of parliamentary expression, enabling debate and dissent without fear of external prosecution or interference.
However, Article 27 is not an unlimited personal right—it is a functional immunity intended to preserve the independence of the legislature, not to override specific constitutional qualifications for holding office.
3️⃣ Reconciling the Two Provisions
Constitutional interpretation requires that provisions be read harmoniously, giving effect to both rather than allowing one to destroy the other.
- Article 17 regulates eligibility and discipline for retaining a seat.
- Article 27 regulates freedom from legal consequence for speech or vote.
Therefore:
An MP may freely speak and vote in Parliament under Article 27, but the political consequence of voting contrary to party direction (vacancy of seat) flows from Article 17 as a constitutional condition of membership, not as a punishment or court proceeding.
Article 27 continues to shield MPs from civil or criminal liability, but does not immunize them from constitutional vacancy created by Article 17.
4️⃣ Democratic Balance and Limits
The Constitution envisages representative democracy through political parties. Party discipline under Article 17 is intended to promote stability, while Article 27 ensures open debate.
Neither provision nullifies the other:
- MPs retain the right to speak against their party within Parliament.
- The party retains the constitutional right to withdraw support and trigger a vacancy if the MP defies its directive on formal votes.
Thus, the balance of democracy lies not in unfettered individualism but in collective accountability under law.
5️⃣ Conclusion of the Court (AI Interpretation)
- Article 17 and Article 27 are complementary, not contradictory.
- Article 27 protects freedom of speech and immunity from legal proceedings, but not from loss of seat under Article 17.
- The referendum-approved amendment lawfully re-defined the conditions for holding a parliamentary seat; hence, it cannot be displaced by invoking parliamentary privilege.
- MPs may vote according to conscience, but must accept the constitutional consequence of doing so when it conflicts with their party’s directive.
- The matter of conscience should therefore be resolved politically within parties, not judicially by courts, unless the procedure in Article 17 is applied arbitrarily or without due process.
Final Word
“Article 27 guarantees the right to speak freely;
Article 17 guarantees that speech carries constitutional responsibility.”
Together, they form the foundation of a disciplined yet democratic Parliament under the Vanuatu Constitution.
This article represents an independent interpretation and opinion based on publicly available information and constitutional analysis. It is not legal advice and does not reflect the official position of the Government of Vanuatu, the Attorney General’s Office, or any political party. The purpose of this publication is to inform, educate, and encourage public understanding of the Constitution and governance principles in Vanuatu. Readers are encouraged to consult official sources or legal experts for formal legal guidance.
Mattdotvu 
Leave a comment