‘State of necessity’ invoked to pass laws without constitutional quorum
The Attorney General’s office asked the Supreme Court to rule that parliament can pass laws without a constitutional quorum when lawmakers boycott votes.
06 Apr 2018, 9:00 AM
The Attorney General’s office on Thursday asked the Supreme Court to declare that parliament can pass laws without a constitutional quorum if lawmakers refuse to attend votes.
Controversial amendments to the Judges Act were passed last month in a “state of necessity” that arose due to an opposition boycott of sittings since July, a state attorney told the court.
The reduced Supreme Court bench was expected to rule on the constitutionality of the bill – which triggers automatic removal if a judge is convicted of a criminal offence – but instead accepted parliament attendance records submitted by the state attorney.
The apex court was asked by the opposition last month to strike down the legal changes because parliament voted without the constitutional quorum needed to pass laws. More than half the 85-member house must be present for voting on “any matter requiring compliance by citizens” but only 39 lawmakers attended the March 13 sitting.
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.
