Political & Policy Analyst by AI

Background

The controversy around Articles 17A and 17B of Vanuatu’s Constitution continues to divide not just Parliament, but the Opposition itself. What began as a shared rejection of the 2024 constitutional amendments—approved by referendum to curb political instability—has now turned into a two-front disagreement inside the same group.

—

Group ‘Vote No’: “Let the Court Work”

According to the Vanuatu Daily Post, Norbert Sumsum Tawual, Vice Chairman of Group ‘Vote No’, has publicly criticised the new urgent constitutional application filed by members of the Parliamentary Opposition.

Tawual says the Supreme Court is already reviewing the constitutionality of Articles 17A and 17B and that the Opposition’s fresh application could interfere with an ongoing judicial process.

> “By filing an urgent constitutional application while the case is still before the Court, the Opposition risks interfering with the ongoing judicial review process. The Court’s decision must be allowed to unfold without external pressure or legal maneuvering,” Tawual told the Daily Post.

He reminded readers that many of the same MPs now challenging the amendment originally voted in favour of it in 2023. Tawual questioned whether the current challenge was truly about legality—or simply a political manoeuvre ahead of 2025.

—

Parliamentary Opposition Group: “Everyone Has the Right to Go to Court”

In response, members of the Parliamentary Opposition insist that every citizen—and every MP—has the constitutional right to seek clarity from the Supreme Court.

> “Everyone has the right to go to court and will have their day in court. Let justice prevail. Members of Parliament are arguing Article 27; they have locus standi,” one Opposition MP told the Daily Post.

The group includes MPs from the Union of Moderate Parties (UMP), Vanuatu Rural Development Party (VRDP), and National United Party (NUP)—some of them newly elected during the 2025 snap election.
Their filing argues that Article 27’s parliamentary privilege may have been compromised by 17A and 17B, and that the court must rule before these provisions are further enforced.

—

Two Opposition Strategies

1. Group No’s approach – Keep one clean judicial review alive, avoid parallel filings, and preserve respect for the Court’s timeline.

2. Parliamentary Opposition’s approach – Apply political pressure through an urgent test case, framing Article 27 vs 17A/17B as a matter of fundamental rights.

Legal experts note that having two overlapping cases on the same issue could create confusion or lead to a stay or consolidation if the Supreme Court decides the new filing duplicates the ongoing one.

—

What This Split Reveals

Internal inconsistency: Many Opposition MPs voted for the amendment last year, campaigned for it, and are now opposing it in court.

Strategic division: Group No views the current lawsuit as politically reckless; the Parliamentary Opposition sees it as a necessary constitutional test.

Judicial caution: Courts usually avoid duplicate or politically-charged cases, so judges will likely insist that the existing review be completed first.

—

Why It Matters

The Opposition’s internal rift shows how fragile post-referendum politics remain.
What was once a united “Vote No” message has split into factions—one defending judicial integrity, the other pursuing political accountability through fast-track litigation.

In the end, both groups say they want to protect democracy, but their methods differ:

One side calls for patience and respect for due process.

The other demands immediate constitutional clarification.

Until the Supreme Court rules, Vanuatu remains in a period of constitutional tension—with two Opposition forces testing not only Article 17A and 17B, but also each other’s credibility.

—

Discussion Question

Do you think the Opposition’s new filing helps democracy by seeking faster clarity—or does it risk undermining the judicial process already underway?

---

⚠️ Disclaimer

This article is an independent analysis based on publicly available information, including reports from the Vanuatu Daily Post and statements from political figures involved in the current constitutional debate.
It does not represent the official position of any political party, government agency, or civil group.

The purpose of this publication is to inform and encourage public understanding of constitutional processes and democratic governance in Vanuatu.
Readers are encouraged to verify information through official court documents, parliamentary records, and credible news sources.

Comments or opinions expressed are for educational and discussion purposes only, and do not constitute legal advice or political endorsement.