PURPORTED DISSOLUTION OF PARLIAMENT UNDER ARTICLE 261(7) OF THE CONSTITUTION
The Chief Justice has, pursuant to Art. 261(7) of the Constitution, advised the President to dissolve Parliament on the ground that Parliament has allegedly “blatantly failed, refused and/or neglected” to enact legislation required to implement the two-thirds gender rule. In my view, the dissolution would have the following implications on the Constitution:
(a) Art. 1(3) of the Constitution delegates the sovereign power of the people to, among others, Parliament. Further, Art. 94(2) clearly indicates that Parliament represents the will of the people and exercises their sovereignty on their behalf. A dissolution contemplated in Art. 261(7) therefore would be a serious affront to the will and sovereignty of the people embodied exercised by Parliament on their behalf.
(b) Art. 94(1) confers the legislative authority on Parliament. That authority is derived from the people. A dissolution contemplated under Art. 261(7) would negate this legislative authority conferred on Parliament by the people, and would thus deny the people the opportunity to exercise that authority, thus defeating the very purpose why the people ordained the Constitution for themselves.
(c) The effect of dissolution of Parliament contemplated in Art. 261(7) would be to prematurely cut short a term of Parliament and thereby precipitate a general election. Art 101(1) clearly indicates that a general election can only be held on the second Tuesday of August every five years. The Constitution does not contemplate any other situation when a general election can be held. Consequently, a dissolution of Parliament will lead to a constitutional crisis, as there does not exist a mechanism for conducting a general election other than what is contemplated in Art. 101(1).
Serious Constitutional Questions that subsequently arise from the Advisory of the Chief Justice.
— Hon. Aden Duale, EGH, MP (@HonAdenDuale) September 21, 2020
Whereas there are no timelines prescribed in the Constitution within which the President is required to act, the decision of Chief Justice has thrown in the follow weighty Constitutional Questions: –
— Hon. Aden Duale, EGH, MP (@HonAdenDuale) September 21, 2020
In view of the foregoing, it is clear there are issues ensuing from the advisory of the Chief Justice, any person may move to the High Court for interpretation, to avert a constitutional crisis.
The Hon. Aden B. Duale, EGH, MP.
— Hon. Aden Duale, EGH, MP (@HonAdenDuale) September 21, 2020
