ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION: [83] I am of the considered view that at this stage of the proceedings the Court is concerned whether or not there is a cause of action pleaded by the Claimants and not whether the Defendant(s) committed any wrong doing or whether the Defendant (s) is liable for any alleged wrong doing. Accordingly, the Court is not concerned at this time whether the Speaker’s decision was flawed in any way. The Court has to determine whether there are any causes of action pleaded or established by the Claimant. [84] I have perused the terms of Section 40 of the Constitution and find that the arguments advanced by Learned Counsel Mrs. Baron-Royer are correct. This section does not create a right that is capable of being violated by the Speaker as alleged by the Claimants. [85] I find the statement of the Supreme court of Vanuatu in the Tari v. Natapei 27 to be instructive in this regard:   “In as much as the Standing Orders of Parliament have an effect and influence upon the Constitutional rights of all members of Parliament, in accordance with Clause 6 of the Constitution any person aggrieved, is at liberty to apply to the Supreme Court..... ....The Constitution does not provide that what happens in Parliament is to be treated differently than any other breaches of lawful rights guaranteed by the Constitution.  It necessarily follows therefore that the Supreme Court is the body which under the Constitution is charged with determining whether rights have been infringed or responsibilities disregarded.” [86] I am of the view that the Court derives its jurisdiction from section 40 ... to determine whether rights have been infringed or responsibilities disregarded. It is clear that Section 40 of the Constitution establishes the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain applications, to hear matters and does not create a right, restriction or requirement or any such thing that is capable of being violated. I do not read this section as capable of being breached by the Defendant(s) and accordingly agree with the submissions of Counsel for the Defendant. I 27    [2001] VUCA 18 Civil Case No 11 of 2001 (1 November 2001)  24