I propose the following draft:

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

It is in the opinion of the High Court that the Charter does not provide for dual candidacy. Contrary to what the petitioner has stated in the Legal Question, while it is not explicitly stated in the Charter that dual candidacy is not permitted, it is implied to be as such through Article 6, Section 1.2 of the Charter, which states

Quote:The senior Cabinet members shall be the Delegate, Vice Delegate, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Minister of Regional Affairs, Minister of the Army, and Chair of the Assembly.

 
As can be seen from the clause quoted above, the singular term 'Minister' is used, as opposed to the plural term 'Ministers', in which case would have provided for the legality of dual candidacy. The use of the singular term implies that only one candidate may be elected to a position, meaning that it does not permit two candidates running on a joint ticket, nor does it provide for splitting of duties between two co-Ministers, unless one of whom is serving in the junior Cabinet as a Deputy Minister. 

Furthermore, in Article 1, Section 2.1 of the Code of Laws, it is explicitly stated that only the Delegate and Vice-Delegate positions are elected on a joint ticket.

While there has been precedent of joint candidacy in Ministerial positions in other regions, the High Court believes that until such time that the Assembly codifies provisions for joint candidacy into law, there is no legal basis for joint candidacy in Ministerial positions in the South Pacific. Furthermore, while the High Court notes that it has a duty in clarifying legal ambiguity, it is in the opinion of the High Court that as a sovereign branch of the South Pacific, and being a distinct entity from the Assembly, it is not the place of the High Court to create laws where laws do not exist. That is the job of the Assembly. 

Individuals should also refrain from using the Courts as a means of bypassing Assembly discussion, or politicising the Judiciary. It is in the belief of the Justices that the High Court is a sovereign branch of the South Pacific, ultimately accountable to only the people of the South Pacific. Hence, individuals should not expect that the High Court rule in their favour, as rulings are based on what is provided in law, or in rare circumstances, implications and interpretations of what is provided in law to create precedents, as the High Court has done on a few occasions in the past. However, the High Court understands that the petitioner had, in this case, submitted a Legal Question instead of having a discussion in the Assembly due to the urgency of the matter, although this should not be made a precedent nor the norm. The South Pacific prides itself in its democratic values, and individuals, along with branches of the South Pacific, should aim to uphold these values.