Constitutional governance: Clarity required
If the Opposition is right in what it says, then the first of the unconstitutional acts by the Government is now in motion, i.e. the Vote on Account that allowed state funds to be utilised lapsed on April 30 (last Thursday). There is no provision in law for the Government to draw more funds from the public purse without Parliamentary approval.
The Opposition has asked for the recall of Parliament to rectify this anomaly, but the Government remains steadfast in refusing to do so. The Government argues that the Constitution provides for the President to draw monies in a political vacuum that prevails today with delayed elections. Not always is the Opposition right, not always is the Government right.
The President has shown no interest in either recalling the Parliament he dissolved on March 2 or in seeking an opinion from the Supreme Court on the constitutionality of all of this. The former Speaker is in no mood to create a constitutional crisis by summoning the old Parliament, and advisedly so. In this backdrop it is the Prime Minister who has now invited the Members of the old Parliament for a meeting tomorrow (May 4). Not all want to attend. Already, his party colleagues have set the groundwork for this meeting by pooh-poohing the need to recall Parliament.
The Election Commission is passing the ball around hoping someone will seek an opinion from the Supreme Court and the Opposition is vacillating without taking the matter to court. The Supreme Court itself is in lockdown mode and probably waiting for a party to come before it as it does not have suo moto jurisdiction to intervene on its own.
That the Government will be toppled with a no-confidence motion is far-fetched. The former Government voluntarily ceded office once the Presidential election was over, but unless the Government is edgy that reconvening Parliament may open the door for fresh nominations and thereby squander the advantage of having caught the Opposition flat-footed in March. However, “what if what the Government is doing is in fact unconstitutional?” A non-political Head of State might well have done what the Constitution provides for him to do to resolve a knotty question of constitutional law, i.e. consult the Supreme Court.
Unfortunately, political issues have surfaced when the entire focus of the nation ought to be on overcoming a virus that is not abating and which has thrown the country’s economy topsy-turvy.
Fears that the country is being run for too long without a Parliament and Courts -- i.e. the Legislature and the Judiciary -and only by the Executive under an undeclared state of emergency with the military, are not unfounded. There is a certain shadow over the democratic process and these are not matters that can be adjudicated over TV talk shows or via media statements.
It seems that someone needs to go before the Supreme Court very soon and get an authoritative determination either way and settle this unsettling constitutional quagmire.