On 13 March 2025, the High Court of Solomon Islands ruled that the dismissal of Daniel Suidani in 2023 as a provincial member of Ward 5, Baegu-West Fataleka in Malaita Province, was invalid. 

This case started following Rollen Seleso, the former Minister of Provincial Government and Institutional Strengthening (MPGIS), decision to remove Suidani as a member of the Malaita Provincial Assembly.

In a letter dated 23 February 2023, Seleso alleged that Suidani made statements in various daily newspapers and international newspapers, including international television, that showed loyalty to a foreign power, specifically Taiwan, in defiance of the Solomon Islands government’s decisions to promote the One-China policy. 

Seleso gave Suidani one week to explain why he should not be disqualified from his position, based on section 15(1)(a) of the Provincial Government Act (PGA) 1997. 

In response, Suidani requested that Seleso provide proof of his allegations and argued that the decision to remove him lacked a solid legal foundation and would not be fair. 

Seleso, apparently based on advice from the Attorney General, maintained that Suidani had not adequately addressed the accusations. 

In a show of ministerial authority, Seleso instructed the Speaker of the Malaita Provincial Assembly, Ronnie Butala, to officially declare Suidani’s seat vacant in the Malaita Provincial Assembly. 

Left with no other option, Suidani took the matter to the High Court, suing the Speaker (first respondent) and the Minister (second respondent). 

His lawyer, Gabriel Suri, argued that the Speaker and the Minister acted beyond their legal authority in disqualifying Suidani under section 15(1)(a) of the Provincial Government Act 1997. Suri pointed out that this provision of the law was repealed by the Citizenship Act 2018 (No. 17 of 2018). 

Brenton Pitry from the Attorney General’s Office, representing the Respondents, presented a defensive argument. 

He contended that the orders and relief sought by Suidani were insignificant because a new Malaita Provincial Assembly was established after the 2024 provincial elections. 

He asserted that the Minister’s authority to disqualify Suidani originated from section 40 of the Constitution, claiming that Suidani effectively disqualified himself under section 49(1)(a) of the Constitution. 

But the High Court noted that these constitutional provisions apply to “pre-election aspects of an election process.” 

During the court proceeding, it became clear that the power to disqualify either a member of parliament or a provincial assembly member was vested in a Returning Officer. 

It was also evident that Seleso relied on a provision of the law that the Citizenship Act 2018 had already repealed, rendering it non-existent. 

The High Court observed that this was the legal flaw of the charge against Suidani, and the counsel for the respondents did not provide much assistance on this point. 

Ultimately, the High Court ruled that Seleso acted “Ultra Vires (beyond his legal authority)”, it declared Suidani’s disqualification invalid and without legal effect. 

Consequently, he is entitled to all wages, allowances, and other benefits receivable by members of the previous Provincial Assembly. According to the law, this court ruling is final. 

The court ruling serves as a reminder that those who exercise governmental power must do so responsibly and justly. 

It also sets a precedent for government Ministers and even others in positions of authority to remember to fulfil their responsibilities within the limits of their authority. 

Their approach to issues should not be based on political factors but on sound judgment and sensible legal advice to ensure their decisions do not risk being declared ‘ultra vires’!

^{* Dr Joseph D. Foukona is an Assistant Professor at the University of Hawaii, Manoa, USA. He is a former senior lecturer at the University of the South Pacific Law School located in Port Vila, Vanuatu. He has a strong research focus on land, law, and history.}