Issue No: 935; 12 July 2001

In a strong editorial published today, the paper condemned Michael Scott's decision upholding the violation of the Constitution by the President. The paper wrote:
"When the President, Ratu Josefa Iloilo, announced the decision to dissolve Parliament, sack the elected prime minister, appoint a caretaker government and hold fresh elections, this newspaper commented that while he acted outside the Constitution, the President had little or no alternative but to act as he did."

"We remain of the view."

"Now, however, courtesy of Justice Michael Scott, we learn that he could have sacked the prime minister and dissolved parliament more or less any time he wanted to."

"This sets a very dangerous precedent."

"The Constitution give the President power to do such things if he is convinced that the prime minister or the government of the day no longer has the support of the Lower House."

"That has traditionally been taken to mean when the government loses a vote of no confidence on the floor of the House."

"The Constitution, however, doesn't spell that out and Justice Scott has taken this to mean that the President can act whenever he believes or has reason to believe that the prime minister of the day has lost the support of Parliament."

"That is too much power for a non-elected President to have and the new parliament should look closely at this provision of the Constitution."

"But the whole case of the Citizens Constitution Forum versus the President leaves a sour taste."

"First, it was allocated to a judge whose perceived ability to deal with the case would always be affected by his actions in earlier having given advice to the Office of the President. He elected to stand aside despite dismissing a legal challenge against his hearing the case."

"Next, the Chief Justice passed the case to a judge who suffered from the same difficulties as a result of his part in the same advice."

"Meanwhile, the CCF lost if charity status in less than convincing circumstances."

"Given he level of public confidence in our judiciary, there will be many ready to believe that this matter was decided long before it came to court."

"What is particularly sad in all of this is that the President's decision to hold fresh elections was probably the only viable way forward."

"Now the court has spoken in his favour. But far from the clear statement of law many had hoped for we have but another controversial chapter in our post-May 2000 constitutional saga."