In response to today's announcement of the Legal Service we note the following. 24.3.2022 had argued that the title should be changed because the second-in-command "cannot and should not be presented or treated as being 'the assistant to' the hierarchical head of the Service".
The Attorney General then insisted that the Auditor General was not entitled to register a petition in the Supreme Court under the provisions of Article 139 of the Constitution, inter alia, arguing that such a petition could not be registered without his approval, nor could it be registered with private counsel. He also contended that the Auditor General (unlike himself) was not an organ or authority within the meaning of Article 139 of the Constitution and that he was not an interested party in the case
All of the above was rejected by the Supreme Court which in fact accepted one of the preliminary objections and held that for Article 139 of the Constitution to be triggered, there must be a violation of the vested powers of the organ or authority invoking that Article, which was not the case here. In so ruling, however, the Court simultaneously confirmed the express provisions of the Constitution by stating in fine that 'the Auditor General shall be the head of the Audit Office of the Republic and the Assistant shall be his successor' and that 'the audit and 'any other authority ... service or duty' shall be carried out by the Auditor General assisted by the Assistant'. The Court also emphasised that the wording of the title does not affect the scope and breadth of an Officer's powers. This important position of the Court is inconsistent with the background of the Attorney General's opinion dated. 24.3.2022 referred to above and which is the one that created the constitutional aberration in the first place.
We therefore fail to understand the purpose of today's announcement by the Attorney General.
(SX)
Contents of this article including associated images are owned by PIO
Views & opinions expressed are those of the author and/or PIO
Source