The doctrine of necessity used earlier this year was UNCONSTITUTIONAL. So you can figure the rest. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine_of_necessity
[size=14pt]Doctrine of necessity[/size]
The term Doctrine of Necessity is used to describe the legal basis for a controversial 1954 judgment in which Pakistani Chief Justice Muhammad Munir validated the extra-constitutional use of emergency powers by Governor General, Ghulam Mohammad. In his judgment, the Chief Justice cited Bracton's maxim, 'that which is otherwise not lawful is made lawful by necessity', thereby providing the label that would come to be attached to the judgment and the doctrine that it was establishing.
The Doctrine of Necessity was also invoked in 1985 in Grenada to permit a murder trial to continue in courts that had been brought into being by an extra-constitutional decree.
Pakistan, 1954: First use of the Doctrine of necessity
On October 24, 1954 the Governor-General of Pakistan, Ghulam Mohammad, dissolved the Constituent Assembly and appointed a new Council of Ministers on the grounds that no longer represented the people of Pakistan. Stanley de Smith argues that the real reason for the dissolution was because Mohammad objected to the constitution which the Assembly was about to adopt.[1] The President of the Constituent Assembly, Maulvi Tamizuddin, appealed to the Chief Court of Sind at Karachi to restrain the new Council of Ministers from implementing the dissolution and to determine the validity of the appointment of the new Council under Section 223-A of the constitution.
In response, members of the new Council of Ministers appealed to the court saying that it had no jurisdiction to approve the request of the President to overturn the dissolution and appointments. They argued that Section 223-A of the constitution had never been validly enacted into the Constitution because it was never approved of by the Governor-General, and therefore anything submitted under it was invalid. The Chief Court of Sind ruled in favour of President Tamizuddin and held that the Governor-Gerneral's approval was not needed when the Constituent Assembly was acting only as a Constituent Assembly and not as the Federal Legislature.[2] The Federation of Pakistan and the new Council of Ministers then appealed to the court, the appeal was heard in March of 1955 (Federation of Pakistan v Maulvi Tamizuddin Khan).
In the appeal hearing under Chief Justice Muhammad Munir, the court decided that the Constituent Assembly functioned as the 'Legislature of the Domain' and that the Governor-General's assent was necessary for all legislation to become law. Therefore, the Chief Court of Sind had no jurisdiction to overturn the Governor General's dissolution and it was held as valid.
However, the ground of which the court found in favour of the Federation of Pakistan called into question the validity of all legislation passed by the Assembly, not to mention the unconstitutionality of the Assembly itself since 1950. To solve this problem, the Governor-General invoked Emergency Powers to retrospectively validate the Acts of the Constituent Assembly. An appeal was filed against the Governor-General for invoking emergency powers and the Chief Justice had to determine the constitutionality of invoking the Emergency Powers and whether the Governor-General could give his assent to legislation retroactively. [3]
The Court held that in this case the Governor-General could not invoke emergency powers because in doing so he validated certain laws that had been invalid because he had not assented to them previously. Justice Munir also ruled that constitutional legislation could not be validated by the Governor General but had to be approved by the Legislature. The lack of a Constituent Assembly did not transfer the Legislature's powers over to the Governor-General.
The Court was referred to for an opinion. On May 16, 1955 it ruled:
1. The Governor General in certain circumstances had the power to dissolve the Constituent Assembly.
2. The Governor-General has during the interim period the power 'under the common law of civil or state necessity' of retrospectively validating the laws listed in the Schedule to the Emergency Powers ordinance.
3. The new Assembly (formed under the Constituent Convention Order 1955) would be valid and able to exerise all powers under the Indian Independence Act 1947. [4]
In his verdict, Munir declared it was necessary to go beyond the constitution to what he claimed was the Common Law, to general legal maxims, and to English historical precedent. He relied on Bracton's maxim, 'that which is otherwise not lawful is made lawful by necessity', and the Roman law maxim urged by Jennings, 'the well-being of the people is the supreme law.'
Grenada, 1985: Second use of the Doctrine of necessity
In a 1985 judgment, the Chief Justice of the High Court of Grenada invoked the doctrine of necessity to validate the legal existence of a court then trying for murder the persons who had conducted a coup against former leader Maurice Bishop. The court had been established under an unconstitutional "People's Law" following the overthrow of the country's constitution, which had subsequently been restored. The defendants argued that the court before which they were being tried had no legal existence under the restored constitution, and they were therefore being deprived of their constitutional right to a trial before a "Court established by law". The High Court acknowledged that the lower court "had come into existence in an unconstitutional manner", but "the doctrine of necessity validated its acts."[5] On this basis, the murder trials were allowed to proceed.
Nigeria, 2010: Nigeria Parliament vote Acting President
Another use of this was when the Nigeria National Assembly on 9 February 2010 passed a resolution making the Vice President, Goodluck Jonathan the Acting President and Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. Both chambers of the Assembly passed the resolution after 78 days of absence of the President Umaru Yar'Adua who was in Saudi receiving treatment and had refused to formally empower the Vice-President to exercise full presidential powers in acting capacity as provided for in Section 145 of the country's constitution. Though there was no such provision empowering the National Assembly to pass such resolution in the constitution, the Senate President David Mark said the Senate was guided by the "doctrine of necessity" in arriving at its decision.
|
