Django posted:ksazma posted:Article 7 doesn't favor the Coalition either. But why you cherry picking when even cherry picking doesn't favor the Coalition. This entire ruling was against the Coalition. Just like the one from June 18, 2019. That one clearly reprimanded Granger for violating the constitution and even after that, he and his wicked party started a campaign assailing the CCJ rather than follow the law as required by decent people. And you still suggesting that Granger is a decent leader bai?
You skipped it ,any way it's posted.
Not deliberately bai. It does not offer any relief for the Coalition. See the part that I bolded especially the part in yellow. The learned judges did not only state what article 106 states but also included their ruling regarding the NCV. That last sentence gave the entire meaning to article 7 of the CCJ ruling. The Judges did not deny the President's or GECOM's role but they reminded everyone that the effects of the NCV has to be honored at all costs.
Article 106 of the Constitution invests in the President and the National Assembly (and implicitly in GECOM), responsibilities that impact on the precise timing of the elections which must be held. It would not therefore be right for the Court, by the issuance of coercive orders or detailed directives, to presume to instruct these bodies on how they must act and thereby pre-empt the performance by them of their constitutional responsibilities. It is not, for example, the role of the Court to establish a date on or by which the elections must be held, or to lay down timelines and deadlines that, in principle, are the preserve of political actors guided by constitutional imperatives. The Court must assume that these bodies and personages will exercise their responsibilities with integrity and in keeping with the unambiguous provisions of the Constitution bearing in mind that the no confidence motion was validly passed as long ago as 21 December 2018.