‘A dark day’: lawyers and legal experts react to supreme court judgment
The supreme court’s judgment declaring itself the final authority on the validity of no-confidence and impeachment votes has drawn widespread criticism from lawyers, lawmakers and legal experts.
24 May 2017, 9:00 AM
The supreme court’s judgment declaring itself the final authority on the validity of no-confidence and impeachment votes has drawn widespread criticism from lawyers, lawmakers and legal experts.
The apex court controversially decided Monday that the parliament’s removal of the president, vice president, ministers, judges and officials of independent bodies will only stand after the court rules on the legitimacy of the no-confidence vote or the impeachment process.
The judgment was delivered after the Attorney General’s office asked the court to establish that the parliament can only dismiss cabinet ministers for committing an impeachable offence.
The AG office sought an interpretation of article 101 of the constitution, which states that a minister will cease to hold office if a majority of the People’s Majlis votes in favour of a no-confidence motion filed by at least ten lawmakers, “specifying the reasons.”
Become a member
Get full access to our archive and personalise your experience.
Already a member?
Discussion
No comments yet. Be the first to share your thoughts!
No comments yet. Be the first to join the conversation!
Join the Conversation
Sign in to share your thoughts under an alias and take part in the discussion. Independent journalism thrives on open, respectful debate — your voice matters.
