By definition a constitutional amendment implies that an error exists in the Constitution that needs to be corrected.
I say there is no error in the Constitution that needs to be corrected.
I say the Parliament has limited powers to only make laws that are consistent with the Constitution. I say that Parliament has power only to alter the Constitution and no power to amend the Constitution. I say all constitutional amendments since independence are unconstitutional but all alterations are constitutional.
The 2006 Constitutional amendments to Sections 12, 127 and 130A of the Constitution and the provisions of the Organic Law on the Integrity of Political Parties and Candidates (OLIPPAC) destroy the basic structure of the Constitution, compromised the principle of separation of powers between the Executive, the Parliament and the Judiciary and lays the foundation for a Police State or a dictatorial government to be established in Papua New Guinea.
Mr. Maladina proposes to amend Section 27 of the Constitution by removing certain powers of the Ombudsman Commission and not to alter it by augmenting the powers of the OC. These are the topics for a public debate.
I challenge Mr. Moses Maladina to a public debate to be coordinated by the Vice Chancellor of the University of Papua New Guinea. The rules of the debate are to be determined by the Vice Chancellor. Mr. Maladina must accept my challenge or withdraw all his proposed constitutional amendments from the floor of Parliament.
Ambassador Peter Donigi CBE LLB 16 March 2010