Vanuatu Opposition withdraws no-confidence motion

Vanuatu PM Jatham Napat. Image: Pasifika Environews

VANUATU’S Opposition bloc has withdrawn its motion of no confidence against Prime Minister Jotham Napat, ending a challenge to the coalition government before Parliament could vote on it.

Malekula MP Gracia Shadrack, who moved the motion, and Opposition Leader Ishmael Kalsakau, who seconded it, both withdrew the motion during Monday morning’s parliamentary sitting.

Before the withdrawal, Luganville MP Matai Seremaiah reminded Parliament that some of the issues raised in the motion were already before the courts and should therefore not be debated in Parliament.

At Monday’s sitting, 40 MPs were on the Government side, while 12 were aligned with the Opposition in the 52-member Parliament.

On the eve of the sitting, the presidents of the five political parties forming the governing coalition met and reaffirmed their commitment to the Government.

An Opposition source told the Vanuatu Daily Post on Friday that the bloc had secured enough support to pass the motion, claiming it had more than the required simple majority of 27 MPs.

However, the source said the Opposition had yet to agree on who should replace Napat as prime minister.

The source also said political parties within the governing coalition that were allegedly supporting the motion had withdrawn their backing because of disagreements over who should succeed Napat.

The motion required the support of at least 27 MPs in the 52-member Parliament. With 12 MPs on the Opposition side, it needed at least 15 additional votes from government MPs, representing at least three political parties.

The motion was lodged earlier this month and outlined six areas of concern, including the allocation of ministerial portfolios, the administration of public funds, alleged political interference, teachers’ welfare, and infrastructure development.

Napat has previously faced a similar challenge.

In December 2025, he survived a no-confidence motion by 36 votes to 12 after the Court of Appeal ruled that the Speaker’s earlier decision to block the motion was unconstitutional.

Share this article:

Related Posts