“Unilateral act to dissolve Parliament unconstitutional”

A democracy is not defined by elections alone. Even dictators occasionally hold elections

“The unilateral act to dissolve parliament, without first receiving a request approved by two-thirds of the members of parliament, is unconstitutional. Article 33(2) (c) of the Constitution vests in the president the power to dissolve parliament. This general power is then subjected to certain conditions in Article 70, which explicitly states that the president ‘shall not’ dissolve Parliament until ‘the expiration of a period of not less than four years and six months from the date appointed for its first meeting.’

The only exception to this condition is when two-thirds of the members of parliament request the president to dissolve parliament. This condition is very clear. The 19th Amendment to the Constitution also introduced Article 33A, which states: ‘The President shall be responsible to Parliament for the due exercise, performance and discharge of his powers, duties and functions under the Constitution and any written law.’ So the Amendment clearly intended to make the president answerable to parliament when he exercises his powers,” he said.

“A democracy is not defined by elections alone. Even dictators occasionally hold elections. A democracy requires organs of government to remain accountable to the people even between elections. This accountability is ensured through the constitution. So any major violation of the constitution undermines democracy. For example, if an actor within the executive arm of government unilaterally terminates the legislative arm in violation of the constitution, democracy is fundamentally undermined - not upheld,” he added.